I recently discovered that of my ancestors was actually killed in the Battle of Bosworth Field. He was camping in the next field and went to complain about the noise.
@@floral2743 It is surreal humour (also known as absurdist humour or surreal comedy,) a form of humour predicated on deliberate violations of causal reasoning, producing events and behaviours that are obviously illogical. Constructions of surreal humour tend to involve bizarre juxtapositions, incongruity, non-sequiturs, irrational or absurd situations and expressions of nonsense. Based on that analysis, you may be assured that an expression of mirth, if you are so disposed, will be justified.
@@nicksmith3315 Except they did it under duress, and only after Richard lied - not to mention imprison (and very likely later had murdered) the rightful king at the time, who also happened to be a child.
Must be nominated for "MOST Improbable example of battle scenes depicted in an Historical Movie" whenever that category opens up. Prolly in the Raspberry Awards. It's sure to Win.
If it wasn't for the White Boar banner, I'd have thought this was a scene from Game of Thrones. It shows a melee in a forest in winter between a group of knights. Presumably the producers didn't think to read any accounts of the Battle of Bosworth. The actual battle was fought in August 1485 and even given the famously bad British summer I'd have trouble believing it was snowing amidst bare branches. It was also fought over an open marshy plain, the plain of Redemore, a few km south of Ambion Hill. Anyone who pays a visit to the area will see there a few forests. I'm glad I've seen it though, as it means I won't bother watching the TV series it was lifted from.
@Tabitha J For sure, hence the parallel. Loosely based, the genius of RR Martin was to take all this history and refashion it into a parallel fantasy world in excellent prose. Apart from the dragons and the creatures with ice blue eyes (stalkers? walkers? I forget) it's very credible. The Wall is surely based on Hadrian's wall, built to keep the Picts / wildlings out. Lately, reading a history of the Crusades I came across a real-life Melisandre - Queen Melisande, one of the very few women who managed to rule (the Kingdom of Jerusalem) in the 12th century - a formidable personality, though without the mysterious / mystical quality to RR Martin's character.
@@Theophilus200 As far as I know the White Queen was never filmed in England. It was mostly filmed in Belgium I think. So there were probably constraints on production and they most likely could not have waited to film in a more weather accurate setting (why they filmed in a forest instead of a field I would never know though). Also the series itself is not based on actual accounts of history. They were based on the series of story books by Phillipa Gregory that were never intended to be historically accurate. In any case true historical accuracy in film and tv have always been a pipe dream. But I do understand people's frustrations at the inaccuracy.
@@spearshake4771 Sure, and that's fair enough. As entertainment it works well, I'd happily watch it on that basis. But anyone hoping to learn something about the Wars of the Roses or Battle of Bosworth would need look elsewhere. I suppose film producers at the end of the day generally leave the 'historically accuracy' to the documentary makers and focus instead on telling a good tale, which is fine. Unfortunately in this day and age the 'good tale' then becomes the popular perception of history because few people seem to have the inclination to read up on it for the facts. In a sense, it's as if people used Grimm's Fairy Tales to form a historical picture of early 19th century Germany.
You forgot to mention that Richard charged him. All he needed to do to win the battle was kill Henry. Henry actually helped his cause by not engaging Richard in open battle. Try mentioning that as well
Henry had a bodyguard. A better one than Richard's, apparently. He also wore a conspicuous suit of armor. Can't hide among the pikemen with that. Henry stood within yards of Richard. Richard charged because after a protracted clash (lots of cannonballs found), his army was stymied by the presence of the Stanley's pinning down Northumberland, keeping him essentially useless to Richard. And Norfolk was dead. He was trying to pull out a victory from looming loss. Almost did. Both Richard and Henry acted bravely. If Henry hadn't, his position would have crumbled. He'd come too far to run.
mijan hoque No. Almost every KIA in medieval and early modern battles got that. Just 8 years before Bosworth, the body of Charles the Bold of Burgundy was treated like that in the battle of Nancy 1477. And even Gustavus Adolphus, who was actually the victor of the battle of Lutzen where he tragically died, suffered to that treatment from battle robbers.
I’m glad that in the 21st century Richard III is getting a fairer review from modern historians compared to the narration given by The Tudors. His remains recovered, identified and finally provided an honorary king’s funeral televised and streamed to millions across the world is Richard’s III vindication. Now I can only hope that modern science will recover the remains of King Harold or his sons from the battle of Hastings. It will be great marvel similar to the discovery of the Terra-cotta warriors.
He was still a usurper who betrayed his brother's memory and imprisioned his nephews after promising his brother he would uphold their rights which caused the downfall of his house.
Famous quote from the battle Lord Blackadder: “ Well the men over there don’t seem to be fighting, their just lying down.” S.Baldrick: they’re dead my lord.”
+david mccormick I think this Battle of Bosworth Field took place in the same universe as Braveheart's Battle of Stirling Bridge, in that Boworth Field was apparently fought in a forest rather than a field and Stirling Bridge was nowhere near a bridge. I can only imagine where Edgehill was fought, probably a deep canyon.
Do you mean the site they thought it was, by Ambion Hill near the visitors centre, or the actual site they found more recently nearer Dadlington, close to Fenn lane. They decided not to move the visitor's centre, but ship the visitors to the actual battlefield instead.
The battle site is known Dean Cutler. I drive past it almost every day. I live 2 villages along. Numerous finds including a sliver boar broach - Richard's emblem, most likely worn by his closest Lieutenants. The setting at the time was low lying marshland - fens - hence Fenn lanes, the road that bisects the battlefield. They drained the fens a couple of hundred years later and due to a map maker's ambiguity, the battlefield was marked as near Ambion Hill, which was most likely Richard's camp from where he'd have marched south west to meet Henry moving most likely moving up from Watling Street (A5)...
The battle was fought on open ground and Richard was mounted, he led the final charge himself in attempt to finish the battle when he saw that Henry Tudor and his personal guard had become separated from their main force. He came close to achieving it, according to contemporary accounts, having killed WILLIAM Brandon and unhorsed the giant John Cheyne with the broken end of his Lance, getting within a swords length of Henry before being overcome by the forces of his traitor William Stanley. So my assessment of this piece, in the language favoured by scribes of the day, is “ablatisque testiculis est onus Domini.” Which is about as close to a load of bollocks as contemporary phraseology will allow.
Watching my great uncle die brings me to tears every time I watch this scene. So perfectly played by A. Barnard. Richard would be honored at his performance. Damn to hell the Tudors and Stanleys 👿!
indeed. I live in north warwickshire and can see the battlefield (whichever one heh). Its nothing like this portrayal. sad really, as the whole series has many really good points
@Hans Gunsche And many of them wore some plates, some of them cuirass or demi cuirass, etc. Munition grade armours were used from the late 15th century. Many soldiers (mainly rich levy or militia, mercenaries, other elit units) wore plates in the late 15th century, as they can afford low quality plates. You can see in contemporary depictions.
@Hans Gunsche "I've always thought that the footmen wearing plate were well payed mercenaries or men at arms" Men-at-arms wore full plate armour. Men-at-arms means anyone who can afford full plate or almost full plate armour, at least one horse, etc. Basically men-at-arms was a heavy cavalrymen. Every noble (included knights), wealthy middle class, etc. men were a men-at-arms. Elit guard units, wealthy mercenaries, etc. almost looks like a men-at-arms, because they had much money. "No way some peasant leavy could afford something like that" I said some good, and wealthy levy or militia units. Not every. The levy and militia troops were very mixed quality: some of the prity good, some of them not very. Depend on many factors. Levy doesn't mean peasant's with pitchforks... Myth... They were not peasant revolters, or somethong like that. And important thing is: this is the late 15th century, end of the Middle Ages, not the 13th century. By the mid-late 15th century professional troops and armies more common (with relatively many mercenaries). Examples: French standing merceanary army from the mid 15th century (King Charles VII created it in 1439), Burgundian mercenary army, Black Army of King Matthias I of Hungary (from the 1460's), German Landsknechts from the late 15th century (created by Maximilian of Habsburg), Swiss Reislaufer's, etc...
I have a question for everyone who is saying this is not historically accurate. This show has a literal witch as the queen and princess and you guys are worried about the climate and the forest ???
As far as I know, King Richard dies by a blow from a halbert, after his horse stuck in muddy ground, after a gallantry attack on Henry Tudors bodyguard, from which Richard was driven off and died alongside his Standart bearer Percival Thirlwall in a fierce melee with welsh footsoldiers!
According to the contemporary by Henry Tudor's own historian, Polydore Virgil, supported by the accounts of French mercenaries among whom Henry concealed himself for safety, Richard led the final charge around the melee in an attempt to reach Henry and end the battle by killing him; in doing so, he killed Henry's standard bearer William Brandon before unhorsing the giant John Cheyne with the broken end of his lance. He mist have got almost within striking distance of Henry before he and his household guard were overrun. An amazing feat for a man of relatively slight build who suffered from Scoliosis, which gives some idea of the adrenalin fuelled desperation of the attack; Richard clearly knew that it was a do or die tactic.
@@justinneill5003 Huh. That must've been Martin's inspiration for Jaime's attempt to kill Robb Stark in the Battle of the Whispering Woods. There sure are a lot of similarities between how badass both Jaime and Richard were, minus the whole Scoliosis thing.
Tudor cowered amongst his men all prepared to run for it.He never struck a single blow to win that crown.AND he put the date of the battle incorrectly,so he could accuse & punish loyal men who were fighting for their true king.He was good at killing young men, old ladies & bastard sons though.But he must've had some good points,as his marriage to Elizabeth was a happy one it seems.I am glad for her.
Peter Forsyth costumes, gear, armours and weapons are awefully out of place as well. So do the haircuts... Everything... It's a shame they can't find the budjet to hire a real historian who could provide some advice.
+Peter Forsyth It's like the Battle of Stirling Bridge in Braveheart; they left out the bridge for budget (& convenience) reasons, yet they still refer to it as "Stirling Bridge" in the film. That's just flat-out incompetent.
a fact that many people are not aware of. This was not the last battle in the war of the roses. Two years after this their was the battle of Stoke field. The two protagonists were Henry Tudor and Lambert Simnel. This battle was actually larger than Bosworth field and had more casulties
I would say this Battle was the one that decided the course of the world about 2-3 centuries down the line. Of course, nobody fighting it that day would’ve been aware of that.
the real stuff is incredibly heavy and i suppose equipping actors AND extras would be very physically demanding for a long shoot (but also, all the costuming in this show, as well as p. much everything else in the show accuracy wise, is p. shit.)
@@flowermagnolia4551 there is no proof they were murdered. Read the book The Survival of the Princes in the Tower by Matthew Lewis. Richard had no reason to murder them as they were declared bastards and he never killed his other nephews who were living with him in his castle. When Perkin Warbeck appeared, Tydder tried everything in his power to have him in his hands and sent spies everywhere. He never showed Perkin to Elizabeth of York and before Perkin was executed, his face was smashed so nobody could see he was the spitted image of Edward IV as he claimed to be Richard Shrewsbury Duke of York one of the Princes. In his letters, Perkin never accuses his uncle but calls Tydder "the usurper". We are a team of researchers and we are trying to find the truth about what I define one of the greatest slander in history. My suspect is the Duke of Buckingham and M Beaufort. They were the ones who could benefit of the Princes' death. History is written by winners. It is easy to malign people who cannot defend themselves. Unfortunately, schools teach always the same stuff and not just about King Richard III but about everything.
This scene reminds me of the fall of Kosem sultan and rise of Turhan sultan in Magnificent Century : Kosem.... Richard and Kosem both are the most controversial Legends ever ❤️
Richard III is the character I hated the most from war of roses. But the series "The white queen" made me fall in love with Richard, may be because of the actor who played Richard. I literally cried when they killed Richard 😭😭
You forgot to mention this was after Richard charged him. The quickest way to decide the battle was killing the leader. If Henry has died then, Richard would’ve won.
So Henry had a bodyguard? As he should have. Richard's rashness killed him. That, and he took hostages, killed people with no pretense of a trial, disappeared his brother's sons, the true heirs. His enemies were not there for a workout. Richard's own actions brought them there. Richard created his own supplanter.
The arms and armor are from the 13th/14th century, not the late 15th century. Most noblemen and men-at-arms would have been wearing full plate or brigandine armor and fighting dismounted with pole arms and impact weapons, swords being more secondary weapons at this point. Guns would have also featured prominently on late 15th century battlefields- cannon played a significant role at the Battle of Bosworth. This appears to be a skirmish in the early 14th century.
What is it with battle scene creators and missing the crucial part of the name? Just like in Braveheart with the bridge-less Battle of Stirling bridge, somehow the creators here mistook the name battle of Bosworth field for Battle of Bosworth forest
No plate armor? Seriously? The equipment used by these soldiers is like from the mid 14th century, not the late 15th century. Also there’s about 30 dudes involved in this battle and it’s in a forest. Definitely no historical inaccuracies there
brilliantly done. Great atmosphere, Stunning tension, Grade-A acting, seriously badass voices and tones, no over-acting or obnoxious screaming and the battle was well done. Very spectacular. Just a few criticisms, and this is just the medieval enthusiast in me talking so please take it with a grain of salt, but I really couldn't see much in terms of armor. Yes, there are gambesons, chainmails and plate armor, all well and good, but I hardly see anyone fully armored up. I just like seeing knights fully geared up, not saying it's a mandatory checklist, just speaking from personal taste. Also, I didn't really see the armor doing much by means of protection. Everyone seemed to be dying from one blow from the sword. Now maybe there was some resistance from the armor and maybe there were vulnerable gaps, but it just seemed to be suffering from the "one hit, one kill" Hollywood trope. No offense. That's just what I got off it. And as for heraldry, well, ok, reds vs whites as in the colors of Lancaster and York, fair enough.I would've loved to see surcoats, but cloth is fine for an independent medieval-based film. As long as everyone can be identified instead of that whole "everyone wears grey armor" BS, I'm perfectly fine with it. All that aside, this was a beautifully made battle down to a T and I'm really sorry if I came across as too critical. I honestly enjoyed it and would indeed recommend. edit: I'm seeing a lot of comments pointing out a lot of misconceptions in this vid, and yes, they're all valid, but this isn't exactly the worst thing ever made, right? definitely better than The King 2019 imo.
Theres me thinking that the battle of Bosworth field was in a field in the summer, with thousands of soldiers Same level of historical accuracy as Sharpe (don't get me wrong, thats one of my favourite tv series')
Wjhatever else he was (and his reputation was probably trashed by the victors, helped by Shakespeare who sucked up to the Tudors for their patronage) he was a brave and seasoned warrior. Remarkable for a man of slight build who suffered from Scoliosis (curvature of the spine) he had fought in previous battles alongside his brother. He led his troops from the front in the final charge when he saw a chance to reach Henry who became exposed with a few followers across the field and he probably got within a few yards of him, killing his standard bearer (Sir William Brandon) with his lance. before knocking Henry's bodygguard John Cheyney off his horse with the broken end. Sir John Cheyney (as he later became) was a giant of a man, when his grave was opened centuries later they found a thighbone which puts his height at around 6'7" which made him an obvious choice for Henry's personal guard. Richard appears to have been seconds away from achieving his goal before his group were overtaken by the enemy and cut down. He was a skilled and seasoned warrior, clearly adept with the lance and no doubt schooled in the art of battle from an early age. Whatever else we can draw from his legacy, he is a study in the strength of human willpower.
Very good but that's not the way it was,Bosworth field is open ground. Richard was struck down with a long handled axe as confirmed when his remains were found.
Yup. Henry needed saving. Richard III was a beast. Even unhorsed, he was cutting through Tudor loyalists like the Terminator, eyes on Henry. It would have been a hell of a sight. Took an entire squad of soldiers to bring him down, and Shakespeare to hide the embarrassment of Henry pooping his armor as Richard, full on bloodlust... cut a path to him. I wouldn't be surprised if Henry was running away when the squad brought Richard down.
This series is an adaptation on historical fiction novels that depicts an alternative storyline to that of which the victors (Tudors) have created to be the official narrative. The White Queen & The White Princess gives us a different perspective on the deeply complex relationships and families in a struggle for power based on accounts told by those who were not accepted as having merit enough to shape the history that we recognize as the official story today signed off by the Tudor dynasty.
Guys you can't expect historical accuracy on a TV show based on some novels. Also, I imagine the forrest and the snow is a strategy from the team to make it look like a much more bigger battle than it is, because obviously they have no budget to do a freaking battle of the bastards like Game Of Thrones. Even tho is not accurate I liked both the show and this battle.
alexjenaya thank you my lord for your help I love medieval movies and tv shows I already googled and found they made only one series I will watch abit tonight
It's Bosworth FIELD for crumb sake, not Bosworth Forest! One of my many problems with this series. They also failed to mention the pre-contract with Eleanor Talbot which made Edward a bigamist. Why else would Henry VII order the Titulus Regis destroyed?
The battle was fought in AUGUST 1485 so snow images are totally inappropriate as are the forest scenes. Look at the NAME of the battle, for God`s sake if you want to recreate a scene even halfway accurate!
The Battle of Bosworth Field was a pivotal moment in English History. As much as 1066 was. Disappointing scene. I'm sure students of The Wars of The Roses will agree.
Key word: Field…. Although the white queen is a good show and I enjoy it the battles portrayed in it, Barnet, Tewkesbury and Bosworth to name a few were all ridiculous.
For some crazy reason most of the battle scenes in the film Richard III with Olivier were edited out in subsequent screenings - even in art house replays - until fairly recently making Richard's final combat jarring and disjointed.
Richard did not say that! He Was offered a horse but refused “god forbid i Yield one step” “this Day i wil die As a King or win” he Said and fought back
@@SamSam-gl8iw But Hejsa! That's what happens in the play too. Read the scene. 'I have set my life upon the cast, and I will stand the hazard of the die.'
Okay this battle was fought on 22 August 1485 so why is there snow on the ground? Oh and the Wiki page for this puts the losses for Tudor at around 100 which is far to few for a battle of this size and such close in fighting. But the Tudor's got to write the history of it and made Richard III to be totally evil which wasn't the case.
@@1885Lion buddy there is a lot more evidence against Richard than there is against Henry( he literally had the means, the motive and the opurtunity since he had already usurped them while Henry at the time was a fugitive in France). And whether he killed them or not Richard usurped his brother's sons, otherwise he wouldn't have been king since he had to lock away Edward's heir in order to be crowned.
I wonder how come that history always picture Yorkists as "good" and Lancastars the "bad". Usually the cause is easy to spot which is Pop culture but in War of Roses case history also shows Yorkist as the righteous. I know that nothing black and white so I do wonder why that is the case.
As far as I know, this show is based on novel book which is not written by historician. The author likes Yorks so she potrayed them like the best ones and the Lancasteres as evil enemies. In the sequel book called 'White Princess' she potrayed Henry as bad husband who treated Elizabeth badly but i've heard that in real they were good marriage so I'm glad that they changed this in tv series "White Princess". But I also wonder why Yorks are prefered by everyone.
@@blacklight4720 "My only guess is Shakespeare, I might be wrong though." Quite the opposite; Shakespeare was decidedly anti-York, and is in some part responsible for the public's perception of Richard III as one of history's great villains. (Henry VII's historians started the vilification of Richard but Shakespeare's work is far more known.) Shakespeare's patrons were Tudors, the line that chased out the House of York. Shakespeare has little bad to say about Edward IV, who granted is not an easy target, but lays it on thick with Richard. Now, it's easy to paint Shakespeare as a propagandist; it's often done in any discussion of his histories. And true, he didn't want to upset his royal patrons. But it's very important to remember his knowledge of history was at the mercy of _terrible_ historians. He read their work and wouldn't have much access to contradictory accounts, e.g. reading Holinshed and Thomas More but not the then-untranslated Domenico Mancini. It's actually not surprising where Shakespeare got his ideas when you go back and read what _he_ read. But remember: when Shakespeare accused Macbeth of regicide, showed Prince Hal as a hellion youth, and portrayed Richard III as a scheming, child-murdering hunchback, he _thought_ he was telling the truth. His incorrect sources asserted those things with authority.
It's the great question bc as you said it isnt black and white. I mean just look at the facts, For a good reason or not the Yorks overthrew the Lancasterians off the throne, and Henry VII and his family were apart of House Lancaster. So The Yorks complain that there world got turned upside down when the Tudors won but how do u think they felt when Edward IV won the throne? When Henry Tudor and his Uncle Jasper Tudor had to live in exile and were constantly running and hiding for their lives hoping they wouldnt be caught and executed? The battle for the throne is never easy and it isnt pretty. Families have conquered and defeated other dynasties and bloodlines all the time. I mean look at John I, he had his nephew, Prince Arthur, the rightful heir of Richard I captured and killed to secure the throne but that is hardley ever spoken about compared to the princes in the tower. Furthermore on Richard III he stole the crown from his nephews, put them in the tower, and although we dont know who did it he made them vulnerable for disappearing so regardless if he did it or not it is just as much his fault. Furthermore though why did he declare himself King, he was lord protector only, even if he declared Edward V as illegitimate, then why did he crown himself and not his other nephew and niece, Edward or Margaret, from his deceased older brother George? Its simple it's because he wanted the crown and power and was gonna do anything to get it and keep it. End of story.
Wait a minute, the battle was caught in August. Why was there snow on the ground ? Somebody dropped the ball or rather, the sword here. Snow in August, hmmmm.🤔🤔🤔
The battle was fought August the 5th 1485. In an open field. On a sunny day. Richard III fought mounted and their was a heavy exchange of gun and cannon fire at the start. So, yeah this is garbage.
Fully armored except for a helmet for actor screen time is so fucking stupid. Yes, I know that they make films for the low information sorts and not the picky folks who are bugged by such things, but it'd be nice to see something that wasn't that inane. The worse part is when facing some primary in the fight, the enemy don't aim every damn blow, thrust, or strike at the vulnerable head. "I'm going to pretend you have a helmet'. and "Oh, it's getting serious, he took h is helmet off.
As long as we are savaging this for inaccuracy, where are the helmets? Half the knights and most of the common soldiers are bareheaded. That would be considered insane at the time.
holy fuck that was terrible, I appreciate England was a lot more wooded back then, but even contemporary accounts would have been able to tell the difference between a field and a forrest.
The Welsh soldiers who fought in this battle came back with a different story to the one that history tells Henry didn't want the crown and offered it to another Welsh man and he said no thanks its its yours and what we know in our stories is that Richard may not have been killed in this battle but imprison in Wales for 3 years until the got quit and Henry had him moved to England were he was killed or murdered. Henry used Welsh soldiers because they couldn't speak English as to keep it a secret. One story that one soldier said on coming back to Wales was Henry flip a coin to see who won the crown because he didn't want it at first
