The Battle of Bosworth Field

On August 22, 1485, King Richard III of England (r. 1483-1485) died fighting in the Battle of Bosworth Field. The victor, Henry Tudor, was promptly crowned King Henry VII (r. 1485-1509).

This battle was one of the last major battles of the Wars of the Roses, a decades-long conflict between the House of York and the House of Lancaster over claims to the English throne.

A century later, this battle was memorialized by the playwright William Shakespeare (c.1564-1616). Shakespeare painted a pitiful scene of King Richard’s demise. Richard is left wandering a field crying out the now immortal line: “A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!”

Unfortunately, not much is documented about the battle, and this lack of information has led to debate. For starters, the exact location of the battle is hard to track; Bosworth seems like the town closest to where the battle occurred, although a recent study places the site of Richard’s death at Fenn Lane Farm, about 2 miles away.

Fenn Lane Farm, near the site of Richard III’s death, pictured in 2013.

Yet an even more intense debate has raged over the meaning of the event itself.

In the eyes of Shakespeare, Richard was the villain—a man who had usurped the throne and killed several noblemen to get it. The Battle of Bosworth Field was thus justified and necessary to bring about peace and order in England.

Shakespeare followed the lead of chroniclers and historians who believed Richard was evil.

The humanist author and statesman Thomas More (c.1478-1435) fashioned a history of England in which Richard was a humpbacked man whose conniving nature led him to exterminate his enemies, kill his two young nephews, and take the crown for himself.

Shakespeare used accounts like More’s to inform his own version of England’s history. More, however, had worked for both Henry VII and his son Henry VIII (r.1509-1547), so it is likely that the author had wanted to provide ample support to legitimize the Tudor dynasty.

Nevertheless, this Shakespearian view of Richard dominated the king’s history in the centuries after his death.

A stained-glass window in St James’s Church, Sutton Cheney, commemorating the Battle of Bosworth Field. Richard III appears to the left and Henry VII to the right.

It is easy to see Henry and Richard as polar opposites, especially when the literature after the battle categorized the kings as such. But that may be exactly what partisan writers want us to do.

In fact, one popular author has argued that the Wars of the Roses itself was a Tudor invention and that King Henry VII had his historians overemphasize the factionalism between York (symbolized by the white rose) and Lancaster (symbolized by the red rose) that was only resolved by the marriage of the two houses: Henry Tudor, a Lancaster relative, and Elizabeth of York (c.1466-1503), a descendant of York.

In this sense, the conflict seems to be a testament to the power of the pen in shaping narratives with victors determining how the losers were remembered.

Twentieth- and twenty-first-century adaptations of Shakespeare’s Richard III have also focused on this question of power, examining its effects when wielded by a corrupt authority. The 1995 film version stars Ian McKellen in the titular role, albeit placing the king 500 years in the future and acting as a fascist dictator.

Promotional poster for Sir Ian McKellen’s production of Richard III (1995) — Promotional poster for Sir Ian McKellen’s production of *Richard III* (1995).

This fascination, then, with Richard’s demise and the rise of the Tudors ultimately reflects a desire to understand why Richard wanted to seek the throne in the first place. Shakespeare’s answer was Richard’s inner greed and malice—a grasp of power for power’s sake.

But outside of literature, people are scarcely motivated to seek power unless they have a certain agenda in mind.

Richard grew up during the Wars of the Roses. The conflict engulfed a large portion of the English nobility who engaged in open warfare for several decades when Richard, the 3rd Duke of York (c.1411-1460), made a bid for the throne in 1460.

York’s son Edward won the throne and was crowned King Edward IV (r.1461-1470; 1471-1483). Edward ruled relatively undisturbed for twenty years. Richard—the subject of this piece—was the youngest son of York and was also Edward’s brother.

Artistic interpretation of the “Princes in the Tower,” Edward V and his younger brother, Richard, duke of York, by John Everett Millais. The princes’ mysterious disappearance was blamed on their uncle, Richard III. — Artistic interpretation of the “Princes in the Tower,” Edward V and his younger brother, Richard, Duke of York, by John Everett Millais. The princes’ mysterious disappearance was blamed on their uncle, Richard III.

But when Edward died in April of 1483, he left two young sons (both under the age of twelve) as his heirs. Richard was appointed Protector, a position that afforded him a say in the governance of England yet saddled him with the responsibility of caring for his nephews.

The princes’ disappearance in 1483 left contemporaries speculating that they had been murdered by their uncle. Today, one author has argued that the princes were not killed but rather shuttled away to live a life of obscurity.

The appeal to know what happened to Richard’s two nephews is understandable given their young age and innocence in the larger conflict.

Stained glass depiction of Richard III and Anne Neville in Cardiff Castle.

Josephine Tey’s 1951 novel Daughter of Time also helped to popularize a sympathetic view of Richard. Its main character, detective Alan Grant, has a gut feeling that Richard is innocent after looking at a portrait of the late king.

Still, whether they were murdered or exiled, Richard did have his nephews deposed and barred them from inheriting the throne.

In 1484, Richard published a document known as the Titulus Regius (Royal Title) in which he argued that his nephews were illegitimate and that his older brother had been unfit to rule. The document also argued that Richard could restore order to England. So, when he took the throne in 1485, Richard believed that it was the best course of action for England.

Tomb of Richard III in Leicester Cathedral — The tomb of Richard III in Leicester Cathedral.

Likewise, when Henry Tudor arrived in the summer of 1485 to wage war against Richard, he believed he was acting rightly in defending his claim to the throne and avenging the supposed death of two innocent princes. Each man was trying to do what he thought was best for England and needed the crown to forward their agenda.

So, as we reflect on the aftermath of the Battle of Bosworth Field, it is possible to hold these two ideas in tension: each man sought what he defined as England’s best interest, using violence to bring these plans to fruition.