Richard III Research and Discussion Archive
Bosworth: the defection of John Hardwicke of Lindley
2017-02-16 17:42:36
Am I the only one to find it strange that:
on 21 August 1485 the High Sheriff of Warwickshire & Leicestershire was out recruiting for Richard and was set upon and murdered. He was the man whose troops would undoubtedly have had local knowledge of the land. Did his recruits ever get to Bosworth?
at the same time one of Richard's Commissioners of Array for Leics, John Hardwicke, of Lindley decided to defect to HT and according to 'history' led him to the best spot from which to wage battle. After the battle he was apparently lauded as a hero. He had connections to the Burtons,one of whom, Sir William, had been Henry VI's standard bearer. Was Richard aware of that?
One does wonder to what extent some of Richard's more distant supporters and been got at. At the moment I'm looking at Bosworth and there's certainly another dimension there. For example quite a lot of our Woodville rebels are actually missing. H
Re: Bosworth: the defection of John Hardwicke of Lindley
2017-02-16 20:32:51
How interesting. The question is WHY? Bought off? Treason treason treason indeed. Did Richard not know about the marsh?
On Feb 16, 2017 12:46 PM, "hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
Am I the only one to find it strange that:
on 21 August 1485 the High Sheriff of Warwickshire & Leicestershire was out recruiting for Richard and was set upon and murdered. He was the man whose troops would undoubtedly have had local knowledge of the land. Did his recruits ever get to Bosworth?
at the same time one of Richard's Commissioners of Array for Leics, John Hardwicke, of Lindley decided to defect to HT and according to 'history' led him to the best spot from which to wage battle. After the battle he was apparently lauded as a hero. He had connections to the Burtons,one of whom, Sir William, had been Henry VI's standard bearer. Was Richard aware of that?
One does wonder to what extent some of Richard's more distant supporters and been got at. At the moment I'm looking at Bosworth and there's certainly another dimension there. For example quite a lot of our Woodville rebels are actually missing. H
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Bosworth: the defection o
2017-02-17 14:07:07
Hilary
wrote:
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Am I the only one to find it strange that:
on 21 August 1485 the High Sheriff of Warwickshire & Leicestershire was out recruiting for Richard and was set upon and murdered. He was the man whose troops would undoubtedly have had local knowledge of the land. Did his recruits ever get to Bosworth? at the same time one of Richard's Commissioners of Array for Leics, John Hardwicke, of Lindley decided to defect to HT and according to 'history' led him to the best spot from which to wage battle. After the battle he was apparently lauded as a hero. He had connections to the Burtons,one of whom, Sir William, had been Henry VI's standard bearer. Was Richard aware of that? Doug here: IMO, it wouldn't have been at all strange to cause as much dislocation as possible prior to or en route to defecting to HT. As for Richard's knowledge of family connections, and their possible effects on individual's loyalty, it seems to me that Richard would likely operate on the idea that all these people had sworn allegiance to him, and until there was any overtly disloyal activity on their part, he had to presume their loyalty. That someone's disloyalty would likely been shown when it was most disadvantageous to whomever they we rebelling against is undoubtedly the reason the punishment for treason, which is what such actions were, was so severe. I have no idea how well, or badly, the High Sheriff's recruiting had proceeded, but it's not to hard to imagine any interference with it was detrimental to Richard. Hilary concluded: One does wonder to what extent some of Richard's more distant supporters and been got at. At the moment I'm looking at Bosworth and there's certainly another dimension there. For example quite a lot of our Woodville rebels are actually missing. Doug here: Well, one reason for the lack of Woodvilles at Bosworth could have been the fact their leaders were both dispersed and disunited. As best I can tell, EW wasn't involved at all, one way or the other. Dorset was, I believe, under house arrest in France. Some others may have been with HT or Richard; the former undoubtedly because of HT's promise to marry EoY and the latter because of EW's rapprochement with Richard. Some may have just decided to hem and haw and wait to see which side won; a not unusual tactic in such situations, I understand. Doug--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Bosworth: the defection o
2017-02-17 16:22:05
Or perhaps the dynamics of the country had changed since the last proper battle in 1471? Up until then there had been virtually continuous war here or abroad for over a hundred years. You get fourteen years of peace and people perhaps start to realise they could move up the social ladder without going to war - be a merchant, a woolman or even a lawyer. You don't need a castle, a nice house will do.
I'll give you the details when I've tidied up the last few combattants I've looked at (and their presence is contentious enough), but one thing that really leaps out is the age of Richard's army - they are the 'old brigade' (and I mean very old for a soldier) who have unsurprisingly turned out to back him, as they did him or Richard Neville in the past*. HT's aren't much younger, but of course he has his mercenaries. One wonders whether Richard's supporters, present or not, really believed they were up against European 'professionals' or did they think it would be a bunch or rabble?
Secondly, Horrox and others make a lot of the fact that Richard didn't get much support from the 'south'. But HT didn't either; it's distorted by the fact that most of the 'last-chance salooners' hale from the South West. Most Kent support has vanished with the Woodvilles and indeed substantial numbers of our 1483 rebels haven't turned out either. As you say, keeping their heads down. H
*incredibly most of them survived
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 17 February 2017, 14:06
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Bosworth: the defection of John Hardwicke of Lindley
Hilary wrote: Am I the only one to find it strange that: on 21 August 1485 the High Sheriff of Warwickshire & Leicestershire was out recruiting for Richard and was set upon and murdered. He was the man whose troops would undoubtedly have had local knowledge of the land. Did his recruits ever get to Bosworth? at the same time one of Richard's Commissioners of Array for Leics, John Hardwicke, of Lindley decided to defect to HT and according to 'history' led him to the best spot from which to wage battle. After the battle he was apparently lauded as a hero. He had connections to the Burtons,one of whom, Sir William, had been Henry VI's standard bearer. Was Richard aware of that? Doug here: IMO, it wouldn't have been at all strange to cause as much dislocation as possible prior to or en route to defecting to HT. As for Richard's knowledge of family connections, and their possible effects on individual's loyalty, it seems to me that Richard would likely operate on the idea that all these people had sworn allegiance to him, and until there was any overtly disloyal activity on their part, he had to presume their loyalty. That someone's disloyalty would likely been shown when it was most disadvantageous to whomever they we rebelling against is undoubtedly the reason the punishment for treason, which is what such actions were, was so severe. I have no idea how well, or badly, the High Sheriff's recruiting had proceeded, but it's not to hard to imagine any interference with it was detrimental to Richard. Hilary concluded: One does wonder to what extent some of Richard's more distant supporters and been got at. At the moment I'm looking at Bosworth and there's certainly another dimension there. For example quite a lot of our Woodville rebels are actually missing. Doug here: Well, one reason for the lack of Woodvilles at Bosworth could have been the fact their leaders were both dispersed and disunited. As best I can tell, EW wasn't involved at all, one way or the other. Dorset was, I believe, under house arrest in France. Some others may have been with HT or Richard; the former undoubtedly because of HT's promise to marry EoY and the latter because of EW's rapprochement with Richard. Some may have just decided to hem and haw and wait to see which side won; a not unusual tactic in such situations, I understand. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
I'll give you the details when I've tidied up the last few combattants I've looked at (and their presence is contentious enough), but one thing that really leaps out is the age of Richard's army - they are the 'old brigade' (and I mean very old for a soldier) who have unsurprisingly turned out to back him, as they did him or Richard Neville in the past*. HT's aren't much younger, but of course he has his mercenaries. One wonders whether Richard's supporters, present or not, really believed they were up against European 'professionals' or did they think it would be a bunch or rabble?
Secondly, Horrox and others make a lot of the fact that Richard didn't get much support from the 'south'. But HT didn't either; it's distorted by the fact that most of the 'last-chance salooners' hale from the South West. Most Kent support has vanished with the Woodvilles and indeed substantial numbers of our 1483 rebels haven't turned out either. As you say, keeping their heads down. H
*incredibly most of them survived
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 17 February 2017, 14:06
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Bosworth: the defection of John Hardwicke of Lindley
Hilary wrote: Am I the only one to find it strange that: on 21 August 1485 the High Sheriff of Warwickshire & Leicestershire was out recruiting for Richard and was set upon and murdered. He was the man whose troops would undoubtedly have had local knowledge of the land. Did his recruits ever get to Bosworth? at the same time one of Richard's Commissioners of Array for Leics, John Hardwicke, of Lindley decided to defect to HT and according to 'history' led him to the best spot from which to wage battle. After the battle he was apparently lauded as a hero. He had connections to the Burtons,one of whom, Sir William, had been Henry VI's standard bearer. Was Richard aware of that? Doug here: IMO, it wouldn't have been at all strange to cause as much dislocation as possible prior to or en route to defecting to HT. As for Richard's knowledge of family connections, and their possible effects on individual's loyalty, it seems to me that Richard would likely operate on the idea that all these people had sworn allegiance to him, and until there was any overtly disloyal activity on their part, he had to presume their loyalty. That someone's disloyalty would likely been shown when it was most disadvantageous to whomever they we rebelling against is undoubtedly the reason the punishment for treason, which is what such actions were, was so severe. I have no idea how well, or badly, the High Sheriff's recruiting had proceeded, but it's not to hard to imagine any interference with it was detrimental to Richard. Hilary concluded: One does wonder to what extent some of Richard's more distant supporters and been got at. At the moment I'm looking at Bosworth and there's certainly another dimension there. For example quite a lot of our Woodville rebels are actually missing. Doug here: Well, one reason for the lack of Woodvilles at Bosworth could have been the fact their leaders were both dispersed and disunited. As best I can tell, EW wasn't involved at all, one way or the other. Dorset was, I believe, under house arrest in France. Some others may have been with HT or Richard; the former undoubtedly because of HT's promise to marry EoY and the latter because of EW's rapprochement with Richard. Some may have just decided to hem and haw and wait to see which side won; a not unusual tactic in such situations, I understand. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Bosworth: the defection o
2017-02-17 18:49:37
Hilary, I think we have discussed previously that William Herbert, Richard's son in law, didn't fight at Bosworth even though he was responsible for guarding the South Wales coast before Tudor landed in Pembrokeshire.Also the owners and steward's of castles along the South Wales coast are said to have fought for Tudor. I am thinking mainly of Sir Matthew Craddock who was either a Steward or owned castles along the coast of Glamorgan. Apparently he fought for Rhys ap Thomas. So did he originally join Thomas thinking he was loyal to Richard and was then swept along with the outcome of Bosworth. Also Herbert appeared to do well under Tudor.
I think that your post about the High Sheriff being killed and John Hardwicke's defection seem a bit suspicious. Was mummy's plotting much more efficient than we realized? Also James Tyrrell and Edward Brampton being out of the country at the time of Bosworth. Would it have made a difference if they had been there? We will never know.
Mary
I think that your post about the High Sheriff being killed and John Hardwicke's defection seem a bit suspicious. Was mummy's plotting much more efficient than we realized? Also James Tyrrell and Edward Brampton being out of the country at the time of Bosworth. Would it have made a difference if they had been there? We will never know.
Mary
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Bosworth: the defection o
2017-02-17 21:53:24
We don't know whether William Herbert, Earl of Huntingdon, fought at Bosworth or not. He didn't do particularly well under Tudor but didn't suffer either, and only lived until 1491.
Several bastard members of the Herbert family rebelled with the Vaughans of Tretower in 1486.
The male line of the family did well under the Tudors because Huntingdon's younger brother, Sir Walter Herbert, had fought for his old playmate Henry Tudor at Bosworth.
Very important not to mix Huntingdon up with Sir Walter - a lot of historians do.
Re: Bosworth: the defection of John Hardwicke of Lindley
2017-03-13 08:42:42
Still catching up Karen, so apologies! I would guess that Richard probably didn't.
Incidentally, one of the very few High Sheriffs absent from the battle was Richard Burton (see below) who was Sheriff of Rutland (next of Leicester). Perhaps he had a knowledge of what was to happen? H
From: "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 16 February 2017, 20:32
Subject: Re: Bosworth: the defection of John Hardwicke of Lindley
How interesting. The question is WHY? Bought off? Treason treason treason indeed. Did Richard not know about the marsh?
On Feb 16, 2017 12:46 PM, "hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
Am I the only one to find it strange that:
on 21 August 1485 the High Sheriff of Warwickshire & Leicestershire was out recruiting for Richard and was set upon and murdered. He was the man whose troops would undoubtedly have had local knowledge of the land. Did his recruits ever get to Bosworth?
at the same time one of Richard's Commissioners of Array for Leics, John Hardwicke, of Lindley decided to defect to HT and according to 'history' led him to the best spot from which to wage battle. After the battle he was apparently lauded as a hero. He had connections to the Burtons,one of whom, Sir William, had been Henry VI's standard bearer. Was Richard aware of that?
One does wonder to what extent some of Richard's more distant supporters and been got at. At the moment I'm looking at Bosworth and there's certainly another dimension there. For example quite a lot of our Woodville rebels are actually missing. H
Incidentally, one of the very few High Sheriffs absent from the battle was Richard Burton (see below) who was Sheriff of Rutland (next of Leicester). Perhaps he had a knowledge of what was to happen? H
From: "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 16 February 2017, 20:32
Subject: Re: Bosworth: the defection of John Hardwicke of Lindley
How interesting. The question is WHY? Bought off? Treason treason treason indeed. Did Richard not know about the marsh?
On Feb 16, 2017 12:46 PM, "hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
Am I the only one to find it strange that:
on 21 August 1485 the High Sheriff of Warwickshire & Leicestershire was out recruiting for Richard and was set upon and murdered. He was the man whose troops would undoubtedly have had local knowledge of the land. Did his recruits ever get to Bosworth?
at the same time one of Richard's Commissioners of Array for Leics, John Hardwicke, of Lindley decided to defect to HT and according to 'history' led him to the best spot from which to wage battle. After the battle he was apparently lauded as a hero. He had connections to the Burtons,one of whom, Sir William, had been Henry VI's standard bearer. Was Richard aware of that?
One does wonder to what extent some of Richard's more distant supporters and been got at. At the moment I'm looking at Bosworth and there's certainly another dimension there. For example quite a lot of our Woodville rebels are actually missing. H
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Bosworth: the defection o
2017-03-13 09:00:10
Hi I tried to reply to Mary but had an incident with a cat and a touchscreen - a lethal mix! Taking the second part of her post about plotting I reckon it was going on more efficiently than in 1483. Quite a few new rebels were distantly related to Morton and Bray and they were in the SW High Sheriff network.One of the interesting things about Bosworth, which is my next 'look' is those who didn't fight, yet are known to have had Lancastrian/Tudor sympathies. There are quite a few of them. Were they pre-warned that treachery was going to take place?
Also, according to Hipshon, Richard could have called upon Maximillian for help; he'd had an accord with him in 1484 and they had a common French enemy. And of course Salazar was there. Did Richard underestimate the enemy, or rather did he think they would play by the rules rather than indulge in what he would consider unchivalric (is that a word?) activities H
From: mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
To:
Sent: Friday, 17 February 2017, 21:53
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Bosworth: the defection of John Hardwicke of Lindley
We don't know whether William Herbert, Earl of Huntingdon, fought at Bosworth or not. He didn't do particularly well under Tudor but didn't suffer either, and only lived until 1491. Several bastard members of the Herbert family rebelled with the Vaughans of Tretower in 1486. The male line of the family did well under the Tudors because Huntingdon's younger brother, Sir Walter Herbert, had fought for his old playmate Henry Tudor at Bosworth.
Very important not to mix Huntingdon up with Sir Walter - a lot of historians do.
Also, according to Hipshon, Richard could have called upon Maximillian for help; he'd had an accord with him in 1484 and they had a common French enemy. And of course Salazar was there. Did Richard underestimate the enemy, or rather did he think they would play by the rules rather than indulge in what he would consider unchivalric (is that a word?) activities H
From: mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
To:
Sent: Friday, 17 February 2017, 21:53
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Bosworth: the defection of John Hardwicke of Lindley
We don't know whether William Herbert, Earl of Huntingdon, fought at Bosworth or not. He didn't do particularly well under Tudor but didn't suffer either, and only lived until 1491. Several bastard members of the Herbert family rebelled with the Vaughans of Tretower in 1486. The male line of the family did well under the Tudors because Huntingdon's younger brother, Sir Walter Herbert, had fought for his old playmate Henry Tudor at Bosworth.
Very important not to mix Huntingdon up with Sir Walter - a lot of historians do.