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.
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.
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.
@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...
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.
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.”
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 😭😭
+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)...
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 ???
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
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.
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
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.
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 ❤️
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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')
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.'
FUNNIEST INTERPRETATION of Richard III since I saw Al Pacino play that king in Shakespeare's play. It was off Broadway, and my companion was a Chechoslovakian stripper and aspiring actress. Paulie Walnuts woulda been prouda me. 😆
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
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.🤔🤔🤔
@@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.
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.
Is that why they moved to the forest? Guys, guys, we are making too much noise, let's go to the forest. No one goes there.
Now THAT sounds like a British death. Moaning about the noise. Mmm, yeah. Appropriate...
Jamestopboy It was nearly postponed because of the weather.
sorry but why is it so funny
@@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.
ah, the infamous battle of bosworth forrest...........
Snow in August - 15th century global warming ?
With only five men fighting...
MrBloodylord Baron Samedi. That’s a 100 pound budget for you
@@lawrencejames8011 That would be global cooling 😂
And cheap armor and no helmets at all 🤣
Imagine a King who fights his own battles, what sight would that be! Indeed it was, the last king of England to die in battle!
He was an usurper !
Richard 111 was not a usurper as historically Parliament offered him the crown. So hence forth not a usurper.
@@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.
@@rexarhunter8925but a King of England nonetheless!
The Battle of Bosworth Field took place only in the woodland and about 20 dudes turned up.
If you need me I’ll be over here burning my history books.
ARX78 😂😂
I was there
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Not good. 👍🏻
As soon as the horse winked at me, I was in love
Henry hid among his men. He didnt accept battle personally.
Shame on him!
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
@@varunvenkatasubramanian8650 I didn't forget anything. That wasn't the point I was making was it. I was debunking this scene as counter factual.
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.
@@DannyBoy777777 a king shouldnt fight like a normal soldier. Its stupid.
What they did to Richards body was disrespectful as hell. Brings back Robb stark memories
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.
Richard didn't deserve his death i don't think he was all evil just my opinion
GRR Martin basically copies from history.. A LOT
@@bryanstark1930 I wouldn’t say copies, if anything he puts his own spin on things
Wait till you hear what he did to his nephews
" My kingdom for a horse, or otherwise i'll end up under a carpark "
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.
Its quite astounding how they knew where to dig. Under a parking lot of all things no less. Hopefully they can find Harold's body.
The recovery of Harold Godwinson would indeed be a tremendous find.
@@spearshake4771 also Henry I and Stephen i hope they find them.
@@Hinata.Sakaguchi I never even realised there bodies were missing. They never died in battle so I'd thought they were buried somewhere proper
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.
And I like this battle, even though it is historically inaccurate, but epic .. I liked the actor who played Richard, it worked out very well.
In more than an article, he said he felt haunted by Richard especially during the battle scene and the King was found while the series was done...
@@chandos2008 Oh,I would love reading that article.
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.
The armour is also completely inaccurate.
How come just curious.
@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...
@@kristofantal8801 I appreciate your knowledge and insight on this subject.
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.
That should have been 'few forests' of course!
@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.
@Tabitha J The equipment of the soldiers shown in the video, the environment, the course of the battle, everything is historically inaccurate... 10/0.
@@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.
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.”
it was not lord but duke of Edinburgh, he was a lord in later series
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 😭😭
@thatking3454well that is where u r wrong watch thr white queen first then the white princess
I watched the white princess first, but I came to love Richard's character more and wished he had won instead.
Nothing like Bosworth field, I have visited the actual battle site. Completly different
+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.
david mccormick The exact site of the battle isn't actually known.
You certainly can't claim to know if the setting here is accurate.
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)...
@@worsethanjoerogan8061 I do archaeology & from items recovered,seems the battle was not where first believed.
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 ???
Jaquetta of Luxembourg was tried for witchcraft and exonerated. I guess that is where they got it from.
Don't usually comment but at 3.52 man at arms wearing trainers!! Noticed it when I watched the original show. How sad am I.
That’s one cold August even for the UK
I just hate how historically wrong the battle is, it was in summer and not in a forest
Peter Forsyth
Totally agree! I would of thought with all the money the BBC have, surely they would of done the history first! lol
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
+Medieval Richard Check out Spanish television like Carlos Rey Emperador and Isabel; they are much more accurate.
At least they got the part where Richard was unhorsed right.
The one time Richard needed Edward the most
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!
why? have you been there?
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.
@@anneneville6255 Obviously, you know nothing about the battle at all.
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.
L Henry VII
W Richard III
It was fought in August, in open country, by more than 100 people. Otherwise, great recreation.
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 👿!
@@shadow_hillsgrandma8224 Bastard Stanleys
@@shadow_hillsgrandma8224 Great uncle??? How old are you exactly? :D
You are so right Sir.
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
Real battle: fought in August in an open field
BBC recreation: fought in winter (snow) in a forest
Seems legit. :/
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.
It’s actually offensive how historically inaccurate this is lol
smithswoodrookie id say Blackadder’s portrayal of the battle of Bosworth field is more accurate
Lord Blackadder: “ Well the men over there don’t seem to be fighting, their just lying down.”
S.Baldrick: they’re dead my lord.”
Richard III had a boar in his flag yet he didn't die rotting on a cell, he fought like a Lionheart.
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 ❤️
I had to watch this 2 years ago for school.
What a complete fantasy The White Queen's portrayal was! :D
Why cant movie producers lend armor from reenactors instead of allways using these stupid looking costumes?
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.)
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.
Henry didn't fight and towards the end of the battle jumped down from his horse to hide amongst the French mercenaries.
Sounds about right for the tuder basterd
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.
Yep, Henry hid like the coward he was. Richard III was betrayed and flat-out murdered. Henry’s claim to the throne was sketchy at best.
All their claims to the throne is sketchy and calling Henry a bastard is really rude. The Tudor girl though were way better
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.
rest in peace king richard
Richard iii is our superhero and avenger
Took place in a forest with about 40 men wearing armour made about 300 years earlier!
King Richard 😢
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.
Paulina Vargas He lives in peace and light now. He doesn't suffer anymore 💟❤😢
@@eliskarezi4489 he was hurried in his enemies lands he will not rest until retuned to York where he wanted to be lied to rest
Laulty me li
balthiers girl He lives in peace and light in heaven near God.
It wasn't called the Battle of Bosworth Wood. What the hell is up with all the trees?
The stuff of nightmares. Scarier than any Stephen King movie.
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.
It is truly a wonderful art mashallah. I hope more battles of the two roses war
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
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.
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')
+OmegaStudios321 Or braveheart, don't get me started on the woad, kilts, and just plain wrong armour used by the English troops.
+OmegaStudios321 They probably couldn't afford more actors.
chap0syoutuification especially making out Edward I daughter had feelings William Wallace
@@199019852007 Wasn't she about 9. and in France?
@@chap0syoutuification To be fair to Sharpe, that was more down to budget.
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
Im sure they wore skull caps underneath their helmets
Didn't Lord Blackadder accidentally killed Richard the third?
Is this a clip from movie ??
Jon Snow 'the white queen' series
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
Constantine Joseph he did indeed lol
Yeah but Peter Cook came back to haunt him
Snow on the 22nd of August.
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.
There is no excuse for perpetuating ignorance.
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.
It occurred on August the 22nd, no snow on the ground!!
Ah... Minecraft PvP in real life.
By far the most absurd aspect of an absurd show.
The Battle of Bosworth fought in Leicestershire (a county noted for its lack of trees) in August, in blazing hot weather.
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.
Nice analysis. A lot of the other commenters criticizing this video appear to have too much time on their hands.
One mistake I noticed here was that the real Henry Tuder was about 6' 3" or so.
Freakishly tall for that time.
"A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!"
Not much of a field is it?
And you know Henry was behind , like a coward, he never fight! Richard was the only true king! In my eyes, the last true king ofengland as well.
Richard's horse is like ferarri in the middle ages
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?
why am i getting adverts about my second favourite game?
Better than the Hollow Crown's scene. Shakespeare was nothing but a Tudor Propagandist and Henry VII quite the tyrant himself
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.
It's a terrible representation of the battle.
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.
What film is this? I'd like to see the whole thing.
Fake tv Richard is a cool, sympathetic character, while the actual Richard...yeah, nah, definitely had his nephews merc'd.
Worst error a mounted Warrior can make is to Stop Moving. Second is not bring on a horse trained for combat, which is where Dressage comes from.
The battle of Bosworth Woods. Who knew? 🙄
POV:Your watching this for online school
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.
@@asiad8297 My only guess is Shakespeare, I might be wrong though.
@@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.
I’ve been to bosworth field, it’s open ground?
Oh I heart this Jasper.
Bosworth was fought on an open field and there certainly wasn't any snow on the ground with it occurring in August.
Check out the Blackadder version too
House of York died out after 4 decades on the throne when Elizabeth of York died of childbirth
This show made Richard my favorite character
Richard was being stabbed after he died, his head shaved and was paraded on a horse. Then thrown into a grave.
The crown was found in a bush. It wasn't right next to Richard's body.
A crown in a bush is worth a finger in there, too..
@@williammartin-howell3565
Well played, M'lord ... well played indeed.
Wow i didn't knew there was snow in August and trees on a field
I really like The White Queen series. The armor was all rubbish but the story was pretty well done and it was good in most other ways.
A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!
Shakespeare claptrap, even the Tudors
Dave Potts their greatest propagandist
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
“Oh dear Richard the llI”
@@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.'
It was snowing in August?
FUNNIEST INTERPRETATION of Richard III since I saw Al Pacino play that king in Shakespeare's play. It was off Broadway, and my companion was a Chechoslovakian stripper and aspiring actress. Paulie Walnuts woulda been prouda me. 😆
What’s with the single pauldron and the copious visible chain mail? It’s like someone stole half his armor before the battle.
I expect the producers thought it looked much more dramatic to make the battle scene in winter. Don't let reality get in the way of drama.
Why is there snow on the ground, the actual battle took place in August?
must have been a particularly harsh August in 1485 what with the snow, leafless tress and frozen breath.
true history bro from house of york and house of lankaster
You never get truth from a tuder or boafaurd
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
I'm sorry that's a load of bullocks
Bosworth Field was fought in August.
Humanity had , has and will have a plethora of stubit moments...😢
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.🤔🤔🤔
When I saw snow (in august), I turned it off!
I wish filmmakers would just show what actually happened, this was just an uncoordinated brawl. No grand cavalry charge, no lances in sight. smgdh
Battle of bosworth was August the 22nd and in a field... WHY ARE THERE TREES AND WHY IS THERE SNOW ON THE GROUND 🤣
Loyalty me lie King Richard, the last true king of England!
Maria Grazia Leotta Lml forever our king Richard III ❤👑🐗👑
Aur true and righteous king laulty me li
My loyalty lies with Henry Tudor, King of England
The one who murderd his Nephews the throne should have went to them but no .
@@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.
Which movie is this
Some of the armour shaking too much almost plastic or rubber
524 years later under a public parking area in middle England....