Study moves Bosworth battle site

[Melvadius]

With possibly a bit more in the way of provable scientific research than the recent Agincourt re-analysis which was more of a paper based exercise it seems that most visitors may have been trekking around the wrong bit of the countryside for years when looking for the site of the key battle during the War of the Roses in the 15th Century (the Battle of Bosworth):-

 

'One of the most important battles in British history is marked in the wrong place, according to new research.

 

Bosworth, fought in 1485 and ending in the death of Richard III, was believed to have taken place on Ambion Hill, near Sutton Cheney in Leicestershire.

 

But following a three-year project, the Battlefields Trust said the discovery of ammunition two miles to the south west proved the location was wrong.

 

But officials said the popular visitor centre will stay at the old site.

 

The battle ended decades of civil war which is now known as the Wars of The Roses.

 

The death of Richard ended the Plantagenent dynasty and ushered in the Tudors.

 

Turning point

 

The traditional site has a flag at the crest of the hill, a stone to mark the spot where Richard fell and a recently renovated visitors' centre.

 

But debate over the actual site of the battle had been going on for more than 25 years before a

[sylla]

With possibly a bit more in the way of provable scientific research than the recent Agincourt re-analysis which was more of a paper based exercise

Have you read the Book?

 

From the review of this book by Clifford J Rogers (U.S. Military Academy at West Point):

 

"... Curry has assembled, in translation, no fewer than twenty-six chroniclers

Edited October 29, 2009 by sylla

[Melvadius]

Have you read the [Anne Curry's]Book?

/quote]

 

No, I have too many course related books to worry about already

 

At heart, as an archeologist, while recognising the value of 'pure' historical research I prefer to work alongside such research with material which has been removed from the ground which has a properly completed 'context sheet'. I personally believe such comparisons can have a greater scientific validity, irrespective of the scholarship which may be involved in 'pure' historical record research without comparative arcaheological material.

 

It also ensures that there are more points to disagree about or at least discuss if I ever get around to writing a doctoral thesis

[sylla]

I'm afraid I'm a bit confused .

I seem to remember that in previous posts (eg, those regarding the Codex Sinaiticus) you explained me the great archaeological value of virtually any ancient document,

Now, Ms. Curry and her team reportedly presented "fifty-odd pages of fiscal and administrative accounts relating to the battle, such as service indentures, pay accounts, letters written during the campaign, and the relatively recently-discovered French battle plan drawn up a week or two prior to the engagement".

I understand that at least some of such material was literally "removed from the ground".

Under your archaeological experience, can that research be dismissed as 'purely' historical?

[Melvadius]

I'm afraid I'm a bit confused .

I seem to remember that in previous posts (eg, those regarding the Codex Sinaiticus) you explained me the great archaeological value of virtually any ancient document,

Now, Ms. Curry and her team reportedly presented "fifty-odd pages of fiscal and administrative accounts relating to the battle, such as service indentures, pay accounts, letters written during the campaign, and the relatively recently-discovered French battle plan drawn up a week or two prior to the engagement".

I understand that at least some of such material was literally "removed from the ground".

Under your archaeological experience, can that research be dismissed as 'purely' historical?

 

 

I'm afraid that you are taking things too literally again While not every remark on this site is intended to have every word analysed to death, there is nothing inconsistent in what I said in either posting. Admittedly a small part of my posting was in jest and if you don't 'get it' then I could say 'so be it' but to put you out of your misery:

 

A couple of points to consider is that when I suggested that a completed 'context' sheet is required for items 'removed from the ground' for proper archaeological analysis, that I meant literally as it provides the key by which objects can be precisely located spatially in an excavation and consequently used to link to other objects and layers found in the wider site.

 

Historic texts can be used to provide background to archeological discoveries and vice-versa, even helping to target excavations. The problem with historic texts, as I understand, them is that in the Agincourt period there can be a mismatch between fiscal and administrative records often with only a major individual being enumerated but not necessarily all of his retainers and supporting men-at-arms. A lot of that is down to how individual record keepers recorded such details but it can also vary depending upon the purpose that the records were being kept while on the English side there is obviously the issue of how many men were fit enough to fight in the battle. In addition letters do not necessarily always tell the truth and period maps can be open to errors in interpretation or in the case of battle plans last minute changes in the face of the enemy, which go unrecorded. These are some of the reasons why several notable academics have already disputed the findings of this 'major' piece of research. It is also why continuing disagreement is the bread and butter of academic research and the Agincourt issue will probably rumble on for years, if not years yet, without ever achieving total agreement on any one side.

Edited October 30, 2009 by Melvadius

[sylla]

I'm afraid that you are taking things too literally again While not every remark on this site is intended to have every word analysed to death, there is nothing inconsistent in what I said in either posting. Admittedly a small part of my posting was in jest and if you don't 'get it' then I could say 'so be it' but to put you out of your misery:

Don't worry; rest assured that if there is any misery here, it's not mine

 

There's no shame in admitting ignorance; no one of us is expected to know everything and there's no need to fabricate "several notable academics" when you weren't even aware of Prof. Curry's research to begin with (it seems you haven't even read her book yet! ).

 

And of course, you can always try to begin expressing yourself literally in your own remarks... after all, that is the main goal of English and any other language. Trust me, that doesn't hurt .

Edited October 30, 2009 by sylla

[Northern Neil]

And of course, you can always try to begin expressing yourself literally in your own remarks... after all, that is the main goal of English and any other language. Trust me, that doesn't hurt .

...another mildly insulting remark which you probably wouldn't have said had you been in the same room together. Try to keep it civil and relevant.

[sylla]

And of course, you can always try to begin expressing yourself literally in your own remarks... after all, that is the main goal of English and any other language. Trust me, that doesn't hurt .

...another mildly insulting remark which you probably wouldn't have said had you been in the same room together. Try to keep it civil and relevant.

Granted; what about this one?

 

I'm afraid that you are taking things too literally again While not every remark on this site is intended to have every word analysed to death, there is nothing inconsistent in what I said in either posting. Admittedly a small part of my posting was in jest and if you don't 'get it' then I could say 'so be it' but to put you out of your misery:

 

Frankly, I find it little more than "mildly"...

Edited October 31, 2009 by sylla

[Northern Neil]

Frankly, I find it little more than "mildly"...

Indeed, although I am prone to making understatements. But point made.

 

However, your constant nit-picking of other people's comments accompanied by languid put downs does provoke that kind of response I'm afraid and many of us are finding it tiresome. While it is fair to ask someone what their sources are or to disagree with an hypothesis due to insufficient evidence, it is quite another thing to articulately use seemingly mild words to deliver quite a damning and public put - down.

 

This next is not an understatement. Put a lid on it, matey.

[Nephele]

And of course, you can always try to begin expressing yourself literally in your own remarks... after all, that is the main goal of English and any other language. Trust me, that doesn't hurt .

...another mildly insulting remark which you probably wouldn't have said had you been in the same room together. Try to keep it civil and relevant.

Granted; what about this one?

 

I'm afraid that you are taking things too literally again While not every remark on this site is intended to have every word analysed to death, there is nothing inconsistent in what I said in either posting. Admittedly a small part of my posting was in jest and if you don't 'get it' then I could say 'so be it' but to put you out of your misery:

 

Frankly, I find it little more than "mildly"...

 

Sylla, if you (or anyone else) should have a complaint about any member of this community, then you are welcome to privately PM that individual to work things out between yourselves.

 

Or you may privately PM a Moderator who will most assuredly tend to the matter either privately or publicly.

 

No backseat moderating, please.

 

Thank you.

 

EDIT: to Neil, I see we were responding to this simultaneously!

 

-- Nephele