Battle of Towton - Phase 1

Edward reached Pontefract on 27 March, having passed through Cambridge and Nottingham. Here he concentrated his forces, but the Duke of Norfolk was not yet arrived. Norfolk was sickly (he was to die on 6 November 1461) and his troops may have been commanded (nominally) by his young son, John Mowbray or (in practice) by his kinsman, Sir John Howard. Anyway, the Mowbray East Anglians were missing in the initial phases, putting Edward at a serious disadvantage.

Edward ordered Lord Fitzwalter to take the bridge over the Aire at Ferrybridge. Fitzwalter initially secured the bridge (which had not been guarded) but early next morning was taken by surprise by a Lancastrian force under Lord Clifford (aka 'Butcher Clifford.') In a fierce fight the Yorkist contingent was driven off, with the deaths of Fitzwalter and Sir Richard Jenney (Warwick's illegitimate half-brother.)

This was bad news indeed for the Yorkists, but Edward did not panic. Instead he sent Lord Fauconberg (Warwick's uncle) to take the bridges over the Aire at Castleford and then attack Clifford in the rear. Fauconberg undertook this task with great success, taking the Lancastrians by surprise and more or less wiping out their contingent. Clifford himself was among those killed. The road was now open for the main Yorkist army (still missing Norfolk) to cross the Aire and take up positions ready to attack the Lancastrians next day, 29 March, which was Palm Sunday.

An Irrelevant Post - Edward II

I have lately been wound up by various people who insist on believing the fable that Edward III was fathered by William Wallace.

Let me set it out in plain terms for the hard of thinking. He wasn't! Edward III was not born until several years after Wallace's death. Human biology teaches us that the normal term of pregnancy is nine months, not seven years! Moreover, Queen Isabella was only 9 or 10 years old at the time of Wallace's execution, and she was still in France.

Edward and Isabella had several children and Edward also had at least one outside marriage. Fact - it is possible for a gay man to father children. Many if not all of us descend from such men in our ancestry, given that until very recently it was common for them to marry and give the appearance of being 'normal'.

There really is no reason to believe that Edward III was fathered by anyone other than Edward II - but he certainly wasn't fathered by William Wallace.

Rant over!

A bit overdue for a Post so here it is.

I know I am a bit overdue for a post. Have I been ill? Yes, but apart from Christmas when I felt like I was dying, no more than usual, which is not enough of an excuse. Have I tired of the project? No, but I'm not in any haste to complete it. Am I lazy? Yes, probably. Unproductive? Yes, tend to be.

Anyway, a few preliminary words about Towton. Obviously a Yorkist v Lancastrian fixture, but in some ways more. Progressives versus traditionalists. The Establishment versus the Outs. Neville v Percy. Neville v Beaufort. Mowbray (a thoroughly pissed off Mowbray) v Lancaster. Warwick v anyone keeping him from the light. South v North. There are probably more sub-plots I haven't thought of.

Edward IV's support among the nobility was a bit limited at this stage. Just one earl fought for him, and that was Warwick. If, instead of a battle, they'd had a vote in the House of Lords there's little doubt Henry VI would have won. Despite his inadequacies, the depth of the continuing loyalty to King Henry should not be underestimated.

Towton is sometimes said to be the largest battle ever fought on English soil. The other contender is Marston Moor in the Civil War, also fought within a few miles of York. I will offer no opinion on this, except to say Towton was certainly a very large battle indeed, with almost the whole nobility engaged. Even Lord Stanley was there, an almost unique event. This was an achievement in itself, a bit like getting me to a current-day football match.

The Yorkists advanced from London in three groups, led by Edward himself, Warwick and Norfolk. They each went by a different route, probably as a means of achieving maximum recruitment to their colours. However, logistics and supply must also have been an issue, because by medieval English standards the forces raised were simply massive.

The Fetterlock Opens - Edward IV becomes King

Warwick and what was left of his army met up with Edward's army on 23 February near Burford - Warwick territory. They must have had a fairly interesting talk about political and military strategy, and at least at first they must have been uncertain about whether or not the Lancastrians had taken London.

The Yorkist march on London was probably inevitable in any case, but one imagines that the departure of Queen Margaret and the Lancastrian army to the north was not exactly bad news. Edward entered London on 28 February (or 26 or 27, depending on which source you choose to believe) and was very well received; he may have chosen to overlook the fact that the city fathers had been preparing to proclaim him a traitor only a few days earlier. Such are the strange chances of politics, although it appears that the bulk of the city population were Yorkist or Warwick supporters in any event.

Over the next few days there was a concerted propaganda exercise. The nub of it was that Henry VI had reneged on the settlement that had been enshrined in the Act of Accord. Now, given that poor Henry was practically a cipher by this time, controlled by whoever had hold of him, this was a little harsh on the King. However, some pretext was needed to justify Edward taking the throne and in the circumstances this spin is understandable.

Many of the citizens were gathered at St.John's Fields Clerkenwell on Sunday 1 March, where they were addressed by clerics, probably Thomas Bourchier the Archbishop of Canterbury and certainly Warwick's brother, George Neville, Bishop of Exeter. The crowd, reacting no doubt to some excellent speeches, rejected Henry VI and called for Edward of York to take the crown.

This 'election' by the people was reported to Edward and supported by the (relatively) few nobles present, of whom the most important were the Duke of Norfolk and Warwick himself.

Edward, still only eighteen years old, was apparently more than happy to take the crown on these terms. He almost certainly thought it was his by hereditary right in the first place. Now, unlike his father a few weeks earlier, he had Warwick onside.

On Wednesday 4 March there was a slightly more formal mass meeting outside St.Paul's Cathedral at which Edward himself was present. The Bishop of Exeter preached a sermon which dwelt on Edward's ancestry and other good points. Would the people have him as their King? Those people present (less than a representative sample it must be granted) said 'Aye!'

Edward accepted the job at once and went in procession (probably a very long and undignified one) to Westminster where he sat on the King's Bench and formally took possession. He was to date his reign from this day.

This was all very 'revolutionary' - but in such circumstances law offers little guidance. Edward was the legitimist King, Henry the statutory one, and you paid your money and took your choice. I don't think there was a 'right' or a 'wrong'.

There was of course no time for a coronation. Henry and his supporters were in the north and Edward IV's first task was to march north, defeat them in battle, and so make his kingship 'real'. The London merchants showed their faith in his cause by lending him large sums to meet the cost. It was to prove a sound inverstment.

Margaret turns back from London

London now lay completely at the mercy of Margaret of Anjou and her Lancastrian army. The citizens had no thought of resistance and sent out a team of noble female negotiators to secure terms. It was led by none other than Jacquetta, Duchess of Bedford, mother of Dame Elizabeth Grey. Another great lady, Cecily, Duchess of York, was meanwhile busily engaged in packing her younger sons, George and Richard, off to the safety of Burgundy.

The Mayor had asked for a guarantee from pillage. Ordinary Londoners were ordered to stay behind doors, and, as a further attempt to placate the Lancastrians a convoy of food was prepared. This was pillaged by a mob of angry Yorkist fans as it attempted to pass out of the city via Newgate, and it appears the 'lower orders' rejected the official city policy and manned the defences. Margaret and her army - which it must be remembered included many Scots, to say nothing of Northerners - were not widely trusted.

On the face of it, Margaret could have overwhelmed the city by force of arms. However, it appears she had no siege equipment, while some of the Scots were already making their way home with their booty. There was also the little matter of the Yorkist army undefeated in their rear. It would have been extremely inconvenient to be trapped between the city defences and Edward of York.

It is not too hard, therefore, to understand why Margaret and her advisers chose to retreat to Yorkshire, though in some ways in was a missed opportunity. The strategic importance of holding London can scarcely be exaggerated. If the Lancastrians had taken possession of the city, it would have made Edward's next step much more complicated.

Warwick and the 2nd Battle of St Albans

While Edward was thus occupied in the Marches, Warwick was faced with the task of defending London from the oncoming Lancastrian horde. Much has been written about Margaret of Anjou and her terrifying army of Northerners and Scots, and much of this is ultimately based on the comments of the Croyland Chronicler, whose mother was obviously scared by someone from Yorkshire. (Unfortunately my copy of the CC is out on loan so I can't quote it.) My feeling is that the general impression that this Lancastrian Army was a sort of cross between Atilla the Hun and the Waffen SS is exaggerated. But it was a medieval army, probably not outstandingly well disciplined and several towns including Stamford, Grantham, Peterborough and Royston are reported as having been pillaged.

Warwick was outnumbered. He had with him his brother, John Neville, Lord Montagu and the Duke of Norfolk. He also had Henry VI in the camp, and since Henry was of little value militarily this was almost certainly to demonstrate that the 'Yorkists' were actually the official 'Lancastrian' army, representing the lawful government - meaning that the other lot were rebels.

Margaret of Anjou would not have seen it that way. She was with her army and is often said to have commanded it; I suspect her role was actually political rather than military, setting the policy rather than deciding on tactics. With her, among others, were Somerset, Northumberland and Clifford, all these relatively young men keen to avenge the deaths of their fathers at the first St. Alban's.

Warwick took up a position blocking the road north of the town. He strengthed his position with various defensive devices such as calthrops - multi spiked pieces of metal designed to repel cavalry - and cannon and (in modern parlance) 'dug himself in'. He has been criticised for this, but it is not unreasonable to fight defensively against a superior enemy and, it should be noted, it was very much in the English tradition to do so. Many victories against the Scots and French had been based on defensive tactics.

Warwick's troops were rather thinly spread over something like four miles, and communication was far from perfect. The earl himself either had insufficient intelligence as to the whereabouts of the enemy or he was confused by the reports coming in. These were the real roots of his difficulty.

Unfortunately for Warwick, Margaret arrived from an unexpected direction. Her army overwhelmed a small defence at Dunstable (led by a butcher and so probably a purely local arrangement) and then (moving by night) attacked the town of St. Alban's itself at dawn of 17 February 1461, thus getting behind Warwick's fixed position. Warwick had left a small garrison in the town, mainly archers. These put up a stubborn defence, especially considering they were isolated, and were not dealt with until noon.

Montagu, nearest to the scene, seems to have thought that the Lancastrians were merely mounting a diversion and was quite late to figure out this was a main attack. When the penny dropped he shifted his position and sent word to Warwick for support. In the interim he faced an attack by the main body led by Somerset and Trollope.

Warwick was slow to react, for whatever reason. Allegedly he had a traitor in his camp, one Lovelace, who gave bad counsel, but he himself may have been uncertain about what was going on and reluctant to abandon his carefully-prepared position. By the time he advanced to help Montagu, it was too late. He withdrew in good order in the falling darkness taking 4000 men with him. Whatever his errors, this feat alone should not be underestimated. (A total rout was more usual in such circumstances.)

Henry VI had supposedly been left in the care of Lord Bonville and Sir Thomas Kyriell. These men were executed along with a captain named Gower. On the other hand, Montagu's life was spared. It is alleged that the Prince of Wales ordered these deaths, but as he was only 7 he was clearly under instructions even if he did. It's also said that Henry wanted to spare Bonville and Kyriell but was over-ruled. Equally it's said Montagu was spared at Henry's request! Propaganda obviously plays its part here and the objective truth is anyone's guess.

This was a Lancastrian victory of some importance, and yet not nearly as complete as it looked. The advantage was soon to be lost.

Bosworth Sunday

Most people will be aware that today, 22 August, is the Anniversary of Bosworth Field - or whatever it should be called given its relocation - where King Richard III met his end. Let us remember the brave of both sides.

I shall leave my analysis of the battle for a (much) later post.