Editing Battle of Bosworth Field (section)

==Legacy and historical significance==
Contemporary accounts of the Battle of Bosworth can be found in four main sources, one of which is the English ''[[Croyland Chronicle]]'', written by a senior Yorkist chronicler who relied on second-hand information from nobles and soldiers.{{sfn|English Heritage|1995|p=6}} The other accounts were written by foreigners—Vergil, Jean Molinet, and Diego de Valera.{{sfn|English Heritage|1995|pp=4, 7}} Whereas Molinet was sympathetic to Richard,{{sfn|English Heritage|1995|p=7}} Vergil was in Henry's service and drew information from the king and his subjects to portray them in a good light.{{sfn|English Heritage|1995|p=4}} Diego de Valera, whose information Ross regards as unreliable,{{sfn|Ross|1999|p=216}} compiled his work from letters of Spanish merchants.{{sfn|English Heritage|1995|p=7}} However, other historians have used Valera's work to deduce possibly valuable insights not readily evident in other sources.{{sfn|English Heritage|1995|p=8}} Ross finds the poem, ''[[The Ballad of Bosworth Field]]'', a useful source to ascertain certain details of the battle. The multitude of different accounts, mostly based on second- or third-hand information, has proved an obstacle to historians as they try to reconstruct the battle.{{sfn|Ross|1999|p=216}} Their common complaint is that, except for its outcome, very few details of the battle are found in the chronicles. According to historian [[Michael Hicks (historian)|Michael Hicks]], the Battle of Bosworth is one of the worst-recorded clashes of the Wars of the Roses.{{sfn|Hicks|1995|p=23}}

===Historical depictions and interpretations===
[[File:Battle of Bosworth Field re-enactment.jpg|thumb|left|alt=An armoured and mounted man leads a small party, similarly dressed in mediaeval attire, along a road.|[[Newport, Shropshire|Newport]] History Society re-enacts Henry's march through Wales to Bosworth Field during the battle's quincentenary celebration.]]
Henry tried to present his victory as a new beginning for the country;{{sfn|Burrow|2000|p=11}} he hired chroniclers to portray his reign as a "modern age" with its dawn in 1485.{{sfn|Carpenter|2002|p=219}} Hicks states that the works of Vergil and the blind historian [[Bernard André]], promoted by subsequent Tudor administrations, became the authoritative sources for writers for the next four hundred years.{{sfn|Hicks|1995|pp=28, 39}} As such, Tudor literature paints a flattering picture of Henry's reign, depicting the Battle of Bosworth as the final clash of the civil war and downplaying the subsequent uprisings.{{sfn|Hicks|1995|p=23}} For England the [[Middle Ages]] ended in 1485, and [[English Heritage]] claims that other than [[William the Conqueror]]'s successful [[Battle of Hastings|invasion]] of 1066, no other year holds more significance in English history. By portraying Richard as a hunchbacked tyrant who usurped the throne by killing his nephews, the Tudor historians attached a sense of myth to the battle: it became an epic clash between good and evil with a satisfying moral outcome.{{sfn|English Heritage|1995|p=11}} According to [[Reader (academic rank)|Reader]] Colin Burrow, André was so overwhelmed by the historic significance of the battle that he represented it with a blank page in his ''Henry VII'' (1502).{{sfn|Burrow|2000|p=12}} For Professor Peter Saccio, the battle was indeed a unique clash in the annals of English history, because "the victory was determined, not by those who fought, but by those who delayed fighting until they were sure of being on the winning side."{{sfn|Saccio|2000|p=183}}

Historians such as Adams and Horrox believe that Richard lost the battle not for any mythic reasons, but because of morale and loyalty problems in his army. Most of the common soldiers found it difficult to fight for a liege whom they distrusted, and some lords believed that their situation might improve if Richard were dethroned.{{sfn|Adams|2002|p=19}}{{sfn|Horrox|1991|p=318}} According to Adams, against such duplicities Richard's desperate charge was the only knightly behaviour on the field. As fellow historian Michael Bennet puts it, the attack was "the swan-song of [mediaeval] English chivalry".{{sfn|Adams|2002|p=20}} Adams believes this view was shared at the time by the printer [[William Caxton]], who enjoyed sponsorship from Edward IV and Richard III. Nine days after the battle, Caxton published [[Thomas Malory]]'s story about chivalry and death by betrayal—''[[Le Morte d'Arthur]]''—seemingly as a response to the circumstances of Richard's death.{{sfn|Adams|2002|p=20}}

Elton does not believe Bosworth Field has any true significance, pointing out that the 20th-century English public largely ignored the battle until its quincentennial celebration. In his view, the dearth of specific information about the battle—no-one even knows exactly where it took place—demonstrates its insignificance to English society. Elton considers the battle as just one part of Henry's struggles to establish his reign, underscoring his point by noting that the young king had to spend ten more years pacifying factions and rebellions to secure his throne.{{sfn|Elton|2003|p=78}}

Mackie asserts that, in hindsight, Bosworth Field is notable as the decisive battle that established a dynasty which would rule unchallenged over England for more than a hundred years.{{sfn|Mackie|1983|p=8}} Mackie notes that contemporary historians of that time, wary of the three royal successions during the long Wars of the Roses, considered Bosworth Field just another in a lengthy series of such battles. It was through the works and efforts of [[Francis Bacon]] and his successors that the public started to believe the battle had decided their futures by bringing about "the fall of a tyrant".{{sfn|Mackie|1983|p=7}}

===Shakespearean dramatisation===
[[William Shakespeare]] gives prominence to the Battle of Bosworth in his play, ''[[Richard III (play)|Richard III]]''. It is the "one big battle"; no other fighting scene distracts the audience from this action,{{sfn|Grene|2002|p=92}} represented by a one-on-one sword fight between Henry Tudor and Richard III.{{sfn|Edelman|1992|p=80}} Shakespeare uses their duel to bring a climactic end to the play and the Wars of the Roses; he also uses it to champion morality, portraying the "unequivocal triumph of good over evil".{{sfn|Grene|2002|p=93}} Richard, the villainous lead character, has been built up in the battles of Shakespeare's earlier play, ''[[Henry VI, Part 3]]'', as a "formidable swordsman and a courageous military leader"—in contrast to the dastardly means by which he becomes king in ''Richard III''.{{sfn|Edelman|1992|p=79}} Although the Battle of Bosworth has only five sentences to direct it, three scenes and more than four hundred lines precede the action, developing the background and motivations for the characters in anticipation of the battle.{{sfn|Grene|2002|p=93}}

[[File:William Hogarth - David Garrick as Richard III - Google Art Project.jpg|thumb|right|alt=A moustached man—dressed in white stockings, puffed breeches, and a red robe—props himself up with his left arm on a bed. His eyes are wide and his right hand raised, palm open towards the front. A suit of armour lays on the floor at the foot of his bed.|''Richard III'', Act 5, scene 3: Richard, played by [[David Garrick]], awakens after a nightmare visit by the ghosts of his victims.]]
Shakespeare's account of the battle was mostly based on chroniclers [[Edward Hall]]'s and [[Raphael Holinshed]]'s dramatic versions of history, which were sourced from Vergil's chronicle. However, Shakespeare's attitude towards Richard was shaped by scholar [[Thomas More]], whose writings displayed extreme bias against the Yorkist king.{{sfn|Lull|Shakespeare|1999|p=1}} The result of these influences is a script that vilifies the king, and Shakespeare had few qualms about departing from history to incite drama.{{sfn|Saccio|2000|p=14}} [[Margaret of Anjou]] died in 1482, but Shakespeare had her speak to Richard's mother before the battle to foreshadow Richard's fate and fulfill the prophecy she had given in ''Henry VI''.{{sfn|Lull|Shakespeare|1999|p=48}} Shakespeare exaggerated the cause of Richard's restless night before the battle, imagining it as a haunting by the ghosts of those whom the king had murdered, including Buckingham.{{sfn|Grene|2002|p=154}} Richard is portrayed as suffering a pang of conscience, but as he speaks he regains his confidence and asserts that he will be evil, if such needed to retain his crown.{{sfn|Lull|Shakespeare|1999|p=18}}

The fight between the two armies is simulated by rowdy noises made off-stage (''alarums'' or alarms) while actors walk on-stage, deliver their lines, and exit. To build anticipation for the duel, Shakespeare requests more ''alarums'' after Richard's councillor, [[William Catesby]], announces that the king is "[enacting] more wonders than a man". Richard punctuates his entrance with the classic line, "A horse, a horse! My kingdom for a horse!"{{sfn|Edelman|1992|p=80}} He refuses to withdraw, continuing to seek to slay Henry's doubles until he has killed his nemesis. There is no documentary evidence that Henry had five [[Political decoy|decoys]] at Bosworth Field; the idea was Shakespeare's invention. He drew inspiration from [[Henry IV of England|Henry IV]]'s use of them at the [[Battle of Shrewsbury]] (1403) to amplify the perception of Richard's courage on the battlefield.{{sfn|Edelman|1992|p=81}} Similarly, the single combat between Henry and Richard is Shakespeare's creation. ''[[The True Tragedy of Richard III]]'', by an unknown playwright, earlier than Shakespeare's, has no signs of staging such an encounter: its stage directions give no hint of visible combat.{{sfn|Edelman|1992|pp=16–17}}

[[File:The Battle of Bosworth Field - A Scene from the Great Drama of History.jpg|thumb|left|alt=A view from the back of a stage. Two unkempt actors enact a sword fight for the audience. Men dressed as soldiers lounge and drink behind the props.|''The Battle of Bosworth Field, a Scene in the Great Drama of History'', illustrating Beckett's mocking of [[Victorian era|Victorian]] attitude towards history]]
Despite the dramatic licences taken, Shakespeare's version of the Battle of Bosworth was the model of the event for English textbooks for many years during the 18th and 19th centuries.{{sfn|Mitchell|2000|p=209}} This glamorised version of history, promulgated in books and paintings and played out on stages across the country, perturbed humorist [[Gilbert Abbott à Beckett]].{{sfn|Mitchell|2000|p=208}} He voiced his criticism in the form of a poem, equating the romantic view of the battle to watching a "fifth-rate production of ''Richard III''": shabbily costumed actors fight the Battle of Bosworth on-stage while those with lesser roles lounge at the back, showing no interest in the proceedings.{{sfn|Mitchell|2000|pp=209–210}}

In [[Laurence Olivier]]'s [[Richard III (1955 film)|1955 film adaptation]] of ''Richard III'', the Battle of Bosworth is represented not by a single duel but a general melee that became the film's most recognised scene and a regular screening at Bosworth Battlefield Heritage Centre.<ref>{{harvnb|Davies|1990|p=74}}; {{harvnb|English Heritage|1995|p=10}}.</ref> The film depicts the clash between the Yorkist and Lancastrian armies on an open field, focusing on individual characters amidst the savagery of hand-to-hand fighting, and received accolades for the realism portrayed.{{sfn|Davies|1990|pp=74–75, 135}} One reviewer for ''[[The Guardian|The Manchester Guardian]]'' newspaper, however, was not impressed, finding the number of combatants too sparse for the wide plains and a lack of subtlety in Richard's death scene.{{sfn|Davies|2000|p=176}} The means by which Richard is shown to prepare his army for the battle also earned acclaim. As Richard speaks to his men and draws his plans in the sand using his sword, his units appear on-screen, arraying themselves according to the lines that Richard had drawn. Intimately woven together, the combination of pictorial and narrative elements effectively turns Richard into a storyteller, who acts out the plot he has constructed.{{sfn|Davies|1990|p=75}} Shakespearian critic Herbert Coursen extends that imagery: Richard sets himself up as a creator of men, but dies amongst the savagery of his creations. Coursen finds the depiction a contrast to that of [[Henry V of England|Henry V]] and his "band of brothers".{{sfn|Coursen|2000|pp=100–101}}

The adaptation of the setting for ''Richard III'' to a 1930s fascist England in [[Ian McKellen]]'s [[Richard III (1995 film)|1995 film]], however, did not sit well with historians. Adams posits that the original Shakespearian setting for Richard's fate at Bosworth teaches the moral of facing one's fate, no matter how unjust it is, "nobly and with dignity".{{sfn|Adams|2002|p=28}} By overshadowing the dramatic teaching with special effects, McKellen's film reduces its version of the battle to a pyrotechnic spectacle about the death of a one-dimensional villain.{{sfn|Adams|2002|pp=28–29}} Coursen agrees that, in this version, the battle and Richard's end are trite and underwhelming.{{sfn|Coursen|2000|pp=102–103}}