SoA Forums

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on September 12, 2024, 02:02:27 PM

Quote from: Erpingham on September 12, 2024, 01:34:05 PMThe Yorkist command react to this situation

Lancastrian, I think you mean?

Corrected.  Thanks Andreas.

Quote from: Erpingham on September 12, 2024, 01:34:05 PMThe Yorkist command react to this situation

Lancastrian, I think you mean?

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.

Remember that merchant ships could have their bottoms clad in thin lead, the Kyrenia Shipwreck Excavation https://nauticalarch.org/projects/kyrenia-shipwreck-excavation/

The site extended about nineteen meters in length and ten meters wide. 27 stones for hopper-type grain mills had been stacked in three rows along the axis of the ship to serve as ballast. Early in the season small fragments of thin lead sheets with bronze tacks were also found, and later, larger sheets were uncovered, indicating that the Greek ship had been covered in a sheathing of lead to protect its hull against marine life.  A large portion of the hull was preserved.  The remaining hull was raised, conserved and reconstructed.  The reconstructed hull was 14 m in length and 4.2 m in beam. Conservation of the raised artifacts took place between 1969 and 1974.

Also there is https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230774259_Lead_Sheathing_of_Ship_Hulls_in_the_Roman_Period_Archaeometallurgical_Characterization

Lead Sheathing of Ship Hulls in the Roman Period: Archaeometallurgical Characterization

Abstract
An archaeometallurgical analysis of samples of lead sheathing from five ships from the Roman period was carried out in order to determine their composition and microstructure, and to obtain a better understanding of their manufacturing processes. The examinations included optical microscopy of metallographic cross-sections, microhardness tests, scanning electron microscopy, including energy dispersive spectroscopy, and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. The results show that the samples were all composed of lead covered with a corrosion layer. The sheet thicknesses, microhardness values and microhardness distribution, as well as the grain size distribution, led to the conclusion that all the sheets were produced by the same technology, using a cold-working (strain-hardening) process, and were probably used for the same purpose. The presence of antimony was observed in the sample from the Roman ship from Caesarea, which may hint at an Italian (Sardinia) origin of the material, and perhaps of the ship.

There is only the abstract, the full article isn't uploaded

Also, Farmers into Sailors: Ship Maintenance, Greek Agriculture, and the Athenian Monopoly on Kean Ruddle (IG II2 1128)

This discusses possible methods of preserving hulls but lead sheeting is mentioned.
But almost by definition, lead sheeting would mean you couldn't beach the ship as it would just rip the lead off

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.

 

Worth noting that Blackman and Rankov's Shipsheds mentions at least one location (might be Sounion but cannot check until tonight) where they think there is a set of military slipways/sheds, and a set of commercial ones, as there are significant ballast deposits next to that group.  I do wonder whether the worm risk is slightly exaggerated - yes, a real ship killer, but merchant ships, with far smaller crews and thus less imperative to find fresh water every couple of days, were able to make reasonably protracted voyages, including across the Indian Ocean to Ceylon or the Indus, without apparently needing constant pitstops to deworm.  Now, it might be that the ships were only good for one or two such trips (and the apparent Tamil quarters in Red Sea ports were constructed from teak probably repurposed from derelict ships), but it seems it was possible to survive a few weeks or even months.  The mention in classical sources of rotten ships do seem to be after arduous campaigns, where risks have obviously been taken and a price paid, but ideally at the end of the season; the problem arises when the campaigns drag on longer than planned (eg Athens vs Syracuse_.

Quote from: Jim Webster on September 12, 2024, 10:02:52 AMYou might find https://honorfrostfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/MAGS2020_Nakas.pdf   Ships and harbours of the Hellenistic and Roman Mediterranean: a new approach 
interesting to read along side it

Thanks very much for the link and the interesting extract.  This, though, addresses the question of docking (or lightering) for the handling of cargo, not the question of maintaining ships in seaworthy condition.

Instinctively I find it difficult to accept that if one is prepared to make a massive investment in large vessel to carry grain from Sicily, North Africa or Egypt to Rome, one would not want to get the best out of that investment by careful maintenance - which would have required getting it out of the water - rather than let it be eaten by toredo worms, but perhaps the economics and logistics of cutting timber and building a new boat every couple of years made more sense the effort needed to careen ships when there is no tide to help you?

Quote from: Erpingham on September 11, 2024, 06:46:06 PMThis article may be of interest when discussing ship mooring practices.

The author certainly considers it unlikely that it was done regularly.  I think, though, he's mainly thinking about hauling ships completely out of the water, rather than partial beachings in temporary bases.

You might find https://honorfrostfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/MAGS2020_Nakas.pdf   Ships and harbours of the Hellenistic and Roman Mediterranean: a new approach 
interesting to read along side it

"Another important aspect of the seamanship and the ships of the period is the ability to deploy alternative methods of using harbours beyond docking. Although a common practice today, docking in antiquity appears to have been a much less popular choice for mariners. Before the introduction of the hydraulic concrete by the Romans in the second half of the 1st century BCE (Brandon et al. 2014: 233-5) most docks and other harbour works were erected on rubble foundations (Rickman 1996; Blackman 2008, 643-7; Wilson 2011: 46-7). Ships of greater tonnage could not approach such structures due to the inclination of the foundation. Wooden piers would have solved the problem, but they appear to have been scarce, as their use is documented in very few sites (Marseille; Hesnard 1994: 209) and in highly stylised Roman frescoes (Votruba 2017: Fig., whereas they are totally absent from written sources. Nevertheless, even when the hydraulic concrete was introduced, this did not affect the configuration of every harbour in the Mediterranean, since its application was costly (its basic material, the pozzolana pumice, was imported from Campania) and technically complex. Thus many areas remained untouched from this new technology (Brandon et al. 2014: 233-4, Fig.3.2; Nakas 2019). The merchantmen of the period were, however, well outfitted and quite advanced and could employ alternative methods easily. Anchoring in the open and using lighters and beaching were the main ones, practices widely employed also by vernacular ships in recent years and even today (Houston 1988: 560-1; Votruba 2017: Figs.5 -6)."

The author goes on to say that beaching was very much restricted but anchoring and lighters were the norm

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.

Oh yes there is...