Talking Towton

[Erpingham]

As mentioned by Jon Freitag elsewhere, Graham Evans has recently done a blog post about the Battle of Towton.  As Adrian Naylor wrote a piece on refighting this battle in Slingshot 353 using the Blood Red Roses rules, my interest has been sparked to look again at the battle.  Having done so, I wrote a detailed post, which unfortunately vanished into the ether    Here is a second take on that post.
Graham's piece is essentially a critique of the views of Andrew Boardman on the battle.  Graham uses an earlier version of Boardman's book on the battle as a basis for his critique but a more recent summary  of his views is found here https://historymondays.substack.com/p/towton-1461-the-anatomy-of-a-battle and https://historymondays.substack.com/p/towton-1461-the-anatomy-of-a-battle-5ee

Graham highlights three areas of contention
1.    Date and duration of the action.  Were actions fought at Ferrybridge and Towton on different days or was there one very long running battle?
2.    The effectiveness of longbow archery.  Were longbows medieval machine guns, as Boardman contends?
3.    The size of the battle and the death toll. Was Towton really the largest and bloodiest battle in England? 

Again, as Jon pointed out, the revisionist position on the battle produced by Tim Sutherland in a paper called "Killing Time" is important in discussing the contentious points of 1 and 3 (he doesn't really do no. 2)  A copy of this paper can be downloaded from the Towton Battlefield Society website  https://www.towton.org.uk/research/
More information on the archaeological explorations of the site is given on the Towton Battlefield Archaeology Project website.  Reinterpretation section http://towtonbattle.free.fr/index.php/re-interpretation/  is a particularly useful summary but the detailed work in the "Cross examining of the evidence" is very interesting on the fieldwork. 
Finally, Tim Sutherland makes much use of a series of contemporary letters about the battle, which can be seen here under April.
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/milan/1385-1618/pp37-106

These are interesting in that they show how information moved about and how official information (in this case casualty lists and casualty numbers) spread.  The same lists and numbers feature in one of the Paston letters, independent of the diplomatic and church networks here.  A good lesson too on lots of sources with the same numbers don't necessarily mean the numbers are right (if they all draw from one source) and the perils miss writing numbers – there are several cases here of hundreds and thousands being confused.
Finally, one interesting discovery on the Towton Battlefield Society website was the Bradford contribution.  The Bolling family fought at the battle.  The Bollings were prominent landowners here and their family house is now one of the city's museums.  What would horrify many Bradfordians is that they were on the Lancastrian side.

So worth a look for many reasons, particularly on the way information about battles can be interpreted in differing ways, about the ups and downs of battlefield archaeology and the general lack of clarity of accounts of battles of the Wars of the Roses.

Beyongd the genuine historical interest, from a gaming perspective, where one stands on the points of contention are quite important in how you approach refighting the battle or even fighting the WotR at all.  How deadly were battles of the time?  Was facing longbows like facing machine guns?

Add : Here is the link to Graham's review, for those not arriving via Jon's Slingshot quote

http://wargaming4grownups.blogspot.com/2024/09/we-need-to-talk-about-towton.html

[Jon Freitag]

Excellent summary, Anthony, and a very good point on examining both the reliability of data and their sources.  Where do your Towton sensibilities fall? 

[Erpingham]

Where do your Towton sensibilities fall? 

I am convinced by the running battle arguments.  Machine gun longbows are a fantasy.  I'm unclear on the casualties side.  It is the weakest argument in the Killing Time paper.  You really cannot say "Medieval people tended to exaggerate numbers so therefore they exaggerated these numbers by a factor of ten".  That said, there is no way that the death toll is anything but a vague estimate.  The huge area the dead were spread over, on three sites and on for miles of pursuit, makes it impossible to be otherwise in the time frame of the reports and what experience did these heralds have of estimating the dead in these circumstances, when most battles were much smaller?  That said, they were probably pretty gobsmacked by quite so many dead - many more than they were used to. 

An interesting take on the casualty question comes from the history section of Parliament here .  This looks at the number of Lords and MPs (so, leading players) present and lost.  The proportion doesn't seem that high for such a bloody battle.

Another interesting angle is provided in a couple of items at the end of this article from the National Archives.  The tale of the mother's will is poignant but also speaks to the uncertainty that was inflicted on families whose sons went off to war.  It looks like these boys didn't come home.  But, if we go back to Bradford's Robert Bolling, he also disappeared and was declared dead in November, only to turn up alive. There are more personal stories out there, of survival despite loss of possessions or receiving wounds, that speak to the post-battle confusion.  So, I think there are plenty of reasons to not take the heralds numbers as definitive.

[Imperial Dave]

Machine gun longbows? 

[Erpingham]

Machine gun longbows? 

It's a popular trope online.  Try a Google search for "longbow machine gun" .

[Nick Harbud]

Maybe they were confusing the medieval weapon with more modern systems, but according to the Resident Evil Wiki, it inflicts 1500 points of damage per hit.

What further argument does one need?

[Adrian Nayler]

I suppose I ought to say something on this.

My curiosity about the Wars of the Roses arose relatively recently, having otherwise had interests in much earlier times. I must confess that I was rather naive about the prospects of researching the 15th century at the outset. Coming from a grounding in the Classical World, with its plethora of written sources of which the vast bulk are available in English translation (and now often online) I thought it would be fairly easy to find the relevant historical sources. Well, I was in for somewhat of a shock. Without specialist access via a university (and an appropriate foundation in the period), I found that it was very difficult to find original sources.

What I discovered (in general terms, there obviously are exceptions) was that many sources lacked a modern publication. Most were translated and published in the nineteenth century but have never seemingly enjoyed a reprint or update. I found tracking down online sources frustrating and often fruitless. The internet does have scans of some early publications but my experience is that the coverage is patchy. For example if you try and find Jean De Waurin you will find many search returns, some for old works and some for a more modern publication of them. However, his work was published in five volumes in the nineteenth century and the Google search results only really concern the first three volumes (ending in 1431) whereas Towton is in volume five. I did eventually find a scan of the 1864 volume five on Internet Archive but, as I expected, it published the French text. Not so good for me.

Another example was my search for sources on Blore Heath which are contained in the Parliamentary records of the time. Easy you say, they will be publically available – well the modern ones perhaps! I managed to find a scan of the appropriate roll in a U.S. university online repository (in fact many of those documents available online do seem to reside in America). Having found the scan of the old book it was then I discovered the publication was in Latin. I really should have foreseen that and, again, not so good for me. Now, that may all suggest the amateur has a somewhat hopeless task but there is information available if only one can track it down.

Before turning to Towton, I should perhaps outline my thoughts about the nature of the information available to us for reconstructing battles for wargaming (and historical reconstruction generally). In broad historical terms we know quite a lot about the Wars of the Roses. However, just as with the ancient world, there is an overwhelmingly greater number of things we don't know or don't understand. Just as with writers of the ancient world, the authors of the 15th century were not writing objective history as the modern world knows it. Furthermore, to rub salt in our wounds, they were also manifestly uninterested in the information we desire to reconstruct battles of the time.

Ultimately, despite the impression given by many modern history books, we know almost nothing of most battles. We don't know the strengths and compositions of the armies, nor how they were organised or how they formed up and operated on the field of battle. We seldom have any idea of the tactical flow or phases of a battle. We seldom know even which major notables were present, let alone enough information to reconstruct command structures. We also often lack certainty as to where exactly the battles were fought, before we can even begin to consider how landscapes may have changed in the centuries since. What we have are snippets and glimpses.

This inevitably makes it a necessity to use a large degree of interpretive reconstruction when forming a view of any individual battle. In layman's terms that means in many instances we, and also historians, have to resort to making things up. Now some will make up more reasonable things than others but we must inevitably recognise that the majority of all historical battle accounts in the literature are based on extremely flimsy foundations. You may think I am taking an excessively negative view but my experience is that the deeper you delve the less clear things become.

As an aside, it was my increasing perception of the limitations of trying to reconstruct any battle for a wargames scenario, to a point where we could find any meaningful historical validation in it, that caused me to take a more generic approach in Blood Red Roses. I feel that it's hard make a judgement with so little data to validate. You may not agree, and that's fine.

I'm not going to write too extensively on Towton other than to say I am sympathetic to Sutherland's work (as is Graham Evans). For the purposes of considering Towton I recommend reading the 1995 English Heritage Battlefield Report:

https://historicengland.org.uk/content/docs/listing/battlefields/towton/

It gives a summary of the accepted view of the time but that is not why you should read it. It contains extracts of the main sources in translation (so including De Waurin). You will see that the primary English source is Hall's Chronicle. The more contemporary account of De Waurin is completely contradictory to Hall, giving a different narrative. So, the first thing to decide is which account you should prefer and/or whether you believe they can be at all reconciled. I do not consider myself qualified to navigate this historical conundrum with any particular authority. However, I'm sure that if we were all tasked with writing an account of the battle from the sources that we would all produce a slightly (or indeed dramatically) different narrative.

Hall is writing, I think, in the later reign of Henry VIII. Obviously, he could be influenced by his Tudor audience, as well as the potential failings of an accurate transmission of folk memory. He is also thought, I believe, to have made use of earlier sources from the time of Henry VII. So, potentially a Tudor (Lancastrian) bias here. De Waurin is sometimes favoured as he is more contemporary to the events than Hall. As I understand it he was based at the Burgundian court (itself friendly to the Yorkist faction). He seems to have received his information from letters sent to the Court by Yorkist-leaning correspondents. Is his account going to be any more objective or less biased than Hall's? You will see his account makes more than might be expected of cavalry action. Is this what happened? I have no answers but you see the problem.

Turning briefly to the archaeological work done at Towton, as admitted on the website Anthony highlighted, there is little concrete that can be taken from this with any statistical validity. Bicheno's recent account (Hugh Bicheno, 2018, "Battle Royal. The Wars of the Roses, 1440-1462", London, Pegasus Books) is forceful in dismissing any reliance upon the written sources, but is I fear rather too optimistic as to what the archaeology can actually tell us. I suspect his eye of faith rather blinds him in the enormous game of join-the-dots the scatter of finds presents. See Schürger's work on the Battle of Lutzen 1632 for a more sober view on this speculative exercise.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/293048746.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwji4d_vrLuIAxXiU0EAHZm2JFoQFnoECBYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1hn1TX6M52AUMBJZ5Hcrsa

I think I've rambled rather too long. Surely not everyone will agree with my approach but differing views are both the beauty and the curse of our fields of endeavour.

12.09.2024

I rather ran out of steam yesterday and 'posted' before really making my point. I don't want to suggest (as I think I may have done) that I don't value continuing historical and archaeological research. I absolutely do, but I have reservations over the use that some of it may be put to and the strength of advocacy sometimes applied to it.

In respect of Towton, I think that Bicheno's view of the battle is a less reasonable reconstruction, with his precise battle plans seemingly based on archaeological science and his firm advocacy suggesting it may have greater foundation than I think it does. On the other hand, Graham Evans' attempt to estimate the combatants present may be a more reasonable reconstruction where he estimates a theoretical troop frontage and depth from comparative evidence and then applies that to the available space in the ground where he thinks the battle lines formed up. Both reject, either explicitly or implicitly, all or part of the historical testimony. That rejection is of course key to the historical method but by eliminating key parts of the little we are told by the sources we find ourselves increasingly seeking alternative data to reconstruct our battles. It seems to me that that may often be no more helpful than the historical sources in our quest for certainty over uncertainty.

In conclusion, I think that when we consider a history book battle reconstruction or wargames scenario in this period we should recognise that no one really knows the detail. Some accounts may be more reasonable reconstructions than others but we will seldom really be in a position to categorically dismiss one account and prefer another. So, whilst we all hold our own opinions and preferred theories we should perhaps not be too dogmatic when judging those of others.

Adrian.

[Nick Harbud]

You make very good points.  Some years ago at a previous Society Conference, I listened to Phil Steele and Mike Ingrams talk about the location of the Battle of Bosworth.  Key to the discussion was archaeology performed by Glenn Foard, who discovered cannon balls, a boar broach and sundry other artefacts in a location some distance from the previously held view that it took place on Ambion Hill near the current heritage centre.

15 years on and you might expect that everyone would either accept Foard's location for the battle or have come up with some really outstanding reasons why it is somewhere different.  No such luck.  The Wikipedia page notes "The very extensive survey carried out (2005–2009) by the Battlefields Trust headed by Glenn Foard led eventually to the discovery of the real location of the core battlefield."  Yet, the maps on the same page show the battle taking place around Ambion Hill.  In one recent book on the battle, the map again showed all the action taking place around Ambion Hill, yet also showed the area of Foard's discoveries.  The whole thing made no sense whatsoever.  I now make a point of looking into every new publication I find on the bookshelf just to see if the author has resolved his hang-ups on this subject.

At least Leicester City Council has demolished the large stone plaque advertising the spot where King Richard's body was thrown into the river.

 

[Erpingham]

Adrian's post pulls out an inconvenient truth of WotR battle studies.  Very few details were recorded of things which we deem important in reconstructing the nature of battle in the period.  Even when there are, there can be great contradictions and confusions.  One example of the issue is the issue of archery in the battle.  The battle of Towton is often cited in longbow books to illustrate tactics.  The episode in question is from Hall's account

When each part perceived other, they made a great shout, and at the same instant time, their fell a small snyt or snow, which by violence of the wind was driven into the faces of them, which were of king Henry's parte, so that their sight was somewhat blemished and diminished. The lord Fauconberg, which led the forward of king Edward's battle (as before is rehearsed) being a man of great policy, and of much experience in martial feats, caused every archer under his standard, to shot one flight (which before he caused them to provide) and then made them to stand still. The northern men, feeling the shoot, but by reason of the snow, not well viewing the distance between them and their enemies, like hardy men shot their sheaf arrows as fast as they might, but all their shot was lost, and their labour vain for they came not near the Southerners, by forty tailor's yards. When their shot was almost spent, the lord Fauconberg marched forward with his archers, which not only shot their own whole sheaves, but also gathered the arrows of their enemies, and let a great part of them fly against their own masters, and another part they let stand on the ground which sore annoyed the legs of the owners, when the battle joined. The earl of Northumberland, and Andrew Trollope, which were chieftains of king Henries vanguard, seeing their shot not to prevail, hastened forward to join with their enemies: you may be sure the other part northing retarded, but valiantly fought with their enemies.

Pretty detailed and quite clear. But this is Hall writing in the 1540s and there are some issues about how his account aligns with the other detailed account of Waurin, which is earlier.  Is Hall thinking in terms of 16th century English tactical practice and, even if he is, was that different to 15th century techniques.  Certainly, Hall is not reflecting the current idea of ultra-short range longbow use in earlier centuries.  Be that as it may, does it support Boardman and the "machine gun longbow" school?  What actually happens?

The two armies come into sight of one another.  It is early in the day and weather conditions are poor but there is no reason to expect them to be suddenly aware at very close quarters.  It begins to snow, blowing into the Lancastrians faces.

The Lancastrians are suddenly unsighted but the Yorkists are not.  The Yorkists, perceiving themselves in range, test this with a volley but are told to cease shooting after one arrow.  The Yorkists reply with rapid shooting but misjudge the range in the conditions  and fall short by 40 yds (which probably means they are engaging at their longer battlefield range - in 16th century terms 180-200 yds). After they have shot off most of their arrows (even shooting rapidly, several minutes), the Yorkists advance and shoot.  They pick up some enemy arrows, so they have gone forward at least forty yards.

The Lancastrian command react to this situation, a process which must mean the shooting goes on for a while to allow them time to do so. They order a general advance which passes through the standing arrows their archers had previously shot i.e. the Yorkist archers, job done, have fallen back on their main body.

We might note a couple of things.  One is the woeful shooting control of the Lancastrians.  They misjudge the range and empty their entire arrow supply at rapid rate without any thought to whether they are having any effect. No longbow sniping here, just a misdirected area barrage.  Another is that Hall doesn't mention casualties, just that the Lancastrian archers have not prevailed.  Out of ammunition and under shot from the other side, they have presumably withdrawn and left their supporting heavy infantry exposed, forcing their commanders to order an advance. Presumably, at least in Hall's eyes, the Yorkist archers have done what they were meant to do - protect their own heavies and provoke the enemy into a disadvantageous advance.

[Andreas Johansson]

The Yorkist command react to this situation

Lancastrian, I think you mean?

[Erpingham]

The Yorkist command react to this situation

Lancastrian, I think you mean?

Corrected.  Thanks Andreas.

[Dave Knight]

Test of Resolve has a Towton scenario which in my admittedly biased opinion gives a good game.

I am firmly of the opinion that whilst Longbows were obviously a factor in the period battles were invariably decided by melee troops fighting it out hand to hand.

When doing an historical scenario our approach in all cases  is to use whatever historical data that is available and historians interpretations whilst discarding anything that does not fit our general interpretation of warfare of the period (Longbow machine gun for instance.

We then extensively playtest to ensure that not only is a historical outcome possible but also that both sides have  reasonable chance of winning.  Gaming is for fun so a semblance at least of balance is required.