"Richard III: preliminary assumptions and ID" Topic

I would like to pick the collective mind… I apologize in advance if I am asking something stupid.

There is something that is bothering me about the preliminary assumptions about/identification of the remains recently found. I will try to articulate it as best I can.

link

The news article I read said that the skeleton appears to exhibit signs of cranial trauma consistent with violent death in battle. In addition, there is an arrowhead lodged in the vertebra.

1. Head injury: I think it is safe to assume Richard would be wearing a helmet in battle. Granted, a helmet could theoretically be knocked off exposing the head, but I would imagine it would be held in place by all kinds of leather straps. And they would be of the best construction, design, and workmanship available to a monarch at the time. Simply snapping/breaking/tearing under the force of impact does not appear convincing. I would imagine most of battlefield deaths of the period would be from sheer numbers overwhelming an individual, however well-armored, and sticking daggers and swords through slits and joints. I suppose, what I am trying to say is that the very idea of a helmet is for it NOT to be knocked off. Therefore… postmortem mutilation?

2. Arrowhead lodged in the vertebra. That sounds just wrong. Again, Richard would be wearing plate armor. the very point of which was to make sure there would be no arrowheads lodged anywhere. Armor was worn because it was functional and protective, otherwise it would not be worn. It is not an eggshell to be pierced by a random arrow aimed at the torso. Richard charging Henry Tudor's lines NOT wearing armor? Not convincing. So, how did the arrowhead could possibly get there?

1. Go get a helmet. Hit it with a halberd. See what happens.

2. Arrows can (if shot close enough) penetrate plate armor.

Just some thoughts.

Also, Richard would have likely started the battle on a horse, and the seat of the pants on 15th c. armour is not really protected to allow someone to properly seat the horse. He may have been hit in the butt with the arrow passing upwards. Just a theory of course. It's very difficult to find images of the back of armour.

David S.

The backspike on a halberd can quite easily penetrate a helmet and the skull in a single whack.

Charles the Bold of Burgundy died at the Battle of Nancy (1477) by having his head cleft in two by a halberd.

Neither the blade nor the backspike of a halberd will penetrate a 15th century helmet of high quality. The steel is too thick and too hard for that to be possible unless the hardening is very spotty while the halbered is wielded by someone of exceptional strenght. (See Allan Williams extensive research on the subject.)

But a powerfull blow to the head will stun you and even inflict head trauma, this in turn would allow an opponent to kill you with a thrust through the gaps in the armour. Overkill is not unknown in such situations and the helmet may well have been removed to allow the killer to strike at the unprotected head.

You have the case of Gustavus Adolphus killed in the battle of Lutzen 1632. As his clothes worn in the battle have been preserved it has been possible to determine that some of his injuries were made while he was still wearing his famous buff coat but most of injuries were from being hit while lying dying or dead on the ground in just his shirt.

Helmets could also be lost in the fighting as buckles or straps broke or were torn or cut. There were attacks taught by the old fighting masters which were intended to do just that. Other parts of the armour could and would be torn of as well which could explain the arrow. It could also be that the arrow is another injury inflicted after death.

The helmet could also be removed to make make the wearer less recognisable and/or more mobile to allow the wearer to escape. This is what Charles the Bold may have done at Nancy where he was killed during the rout.
Charles was thrown from his horse while trying to jump a stream and had a total of 3 fatal wounds, a pike thrust in the goin, another through the buttocks into the body and finaly the halberd blow which cleaft his head in two. It seems likely that he was struck by the pikes before being able to get up from his fall and then was hit on the head with a halberd, possibly after the helmet being removed.

It depends if the blows were struck "post mortem" as it were. The reports say the body was stripped, and it is possible that some "Lancastrians" got carried away (see what happened to Gadafi recently) and inflicted gratuitous wounds.

"The Welsh accounts state that Sir Wyllyam Gardynyr killed King Richard III with a poleaxe. The blows were so violent that the king's helmet was driven into his skull. [15] The account reads, "Richard's horse was trapped in the marsh where he was slain by one of Rhys Thomas' men, a commoner named Wyllyam Gardynyr." [citation needed] Another account has Rhys ap Thomas himself slaying the king. [16][17] Richard III was the last English king to be killed in battle."
All accounts I've read state he was virtually alone and surrounded when he was killed. He was then stripped and probably suffered some post mortem beatings. Don't know about the arrow but of course the Welsh were known as archers so possibly at least one of them shot him at close quarters.

Imperial Forge, that was a great article! Thanks for posting the link and raising the question.

Haven't tried it myself, but pole axes were made to penetrate thick armor of the time. I have no doubt that Richard's armor was top notch but even with the best helmet I bet if you got a solid hit then it'd penetrate, especially with some beefy warrior swinging it and Richard surrounded (despite being an excellent fighter, as chroniclers stated). Also might depend on where on the helmet the blow landed. It'd be interesting to know where on the cranium the trauma was: top? side? back of skull? Some parts may be better protected than others. An arrow in the back certainly would have slowed him down.

On a lighter note, I'm glad to know that archaeologists of the Richard III society were guarded by men-at-arms of the period in question (see pictures on the link). We can rest assured with such neutral observers doing archaeology. ;)

If he had been dismounted from his horse and had fallen on the ground, I can imagine that anyone striking very hard, downwards, with a poleaxe (specially devised weapon against 15th century armour) could have got through his sallet.

At Tewkesbury, Somerset is reported to have killed Wenlock by a blow to the helmet with a battle axe, which is said to have split the helmet and the skull. Helmets were no protection against heavy blows from axes or poleaxes.

Having forebears who were at Bosworth (on the right side – that of York), I am interested in the DNA test results. No-one seems to have mentioned the reports of Richard's remains being thrown into the river at the time of the dissolution of the monasteries. Those reports may have been false, of course, but it is worth remembering before anyone gets carried away on possibilities.

Allow me to give my theory,we have only been told an arrow head in the back,but the arrow head may be a crossbow bolt head!!We English think longbow but the crossbow was probably more common than we think,it just was not used en mass like the longbow so here goes: Richards on foot and fighting,he is shot in the back by a crossbow and by this time far more powerful than a longbow and would easily penatrate his armour ,once down the enemy foot soldiers near him will instantly start to strip him of his expensive armour(loot being a reason some men went into battle) and his gold crowned helmet would have been first(According to temporary accounts someone actually hid this in a bush to collect later)During this unpleasant process he recieves a final blow to the back of his bare head. Of course this is theory and all dependent on if those remains really are Richards!!!!!

Interesting discussion. I am reminded that armour, no matter how good is nevertheless an insurance and has never been a substitute for a combatants own skill at arms in defending himself. Whether against ranged weaponry or in hand to hand combat, a soldier or warrior needs to evade the 'shot' and parry the blow in preference to absorbing the impact. Archery of any sort has always been effective – hence the increasing reliance on greater and greater numbers throughout the 14th and 15th centuries and only the boldest or most foolhardy knight would have taken the field without being keenly aware that it only takes one arrow head to find that one gap. Of course, by the second half of what we call the Wars of the Roses love was all but utterly lost on both sides – executions long having replaced previous ideas of capture, ransoms pardons and living to fight another day. Richard like Simon de Monfort generations earlier most probably sufferred mutilation at the hands of a hateful enemy.

By the way, does anyone know if the crown on a kings helm of this period was able to be removed or whether is was a composite? Might help explain why it may have been removed other than to demonstrate the identity of the fallen.

We English think longbow but the crossbow was probably more common than we think,it just was not used en mass like the longbow so here goes:

There is no primary or archaeological evidence for the use of crossbows on the battlefield in the WOTR.

Thanks for the responses, everyone. A few thoughts and reactions…

@RNSulentic:

1. On the subject of "go get a helmet. Hit it with a halberd." Sorry, this argument is nonsensical.

The whole point is we DO NOT know what happens if you hit an authentic 15th century helmet with an authentic 15th century halberd. The modern experiments are not valid – because they are done with modern reproductions, created with different metallurgy, via different techniques, with different materials, and for different purposes. Some ridiculous SCA helmet being cleft by an axe is not proof of anything. Certainly not of anything relating to the actual historical pieces, which were designed and made to be functional. It only proves what we know already – that modern reconstructions are inadequate, because we do not know the proper period manufacturing techniques and proofing methods.

2. "Arrows can (if shot close enough) penetrate plate armor." Same goes for armor being penetrated by arrows. Again the only way we can assume this to be possible is via experimentation with MODERN reconstructions – which is not telling us anything pertinent. The relevance of these experiments is self-contained. If armor could be proofed against gunpowder shot a century later, i think we can safely assume higher-end armor could be made arrow-proof in Richard's time.

@Mars Ultor: "pole axes were made to penetrate thick armor of the time." Conversely, the opposite is true. The helmets were made to withstand blows from said pole axes. Otherwise they would not be used and relied on.

Hopefully there will be sufficient DNA proof, one way or the other. For now, its all just speculation.

Armour has four defensive functions
To stop a blow
To deflect a blow
To reduce the effect of a penetration
To give a psychological benefit to the wearer and daunt the attacker.

Given that Richard is down , quite possibly through exhaustion because alone and unsupported then his helmet could have been pulled off (especially a sallket would be prone to this, an armet less so. if he was unprotected then no problem.
If the helmet was still on then it is wrong to caompare a XVth cent headpiece with a VXIth cent breastplate because the breastplate is flat and supported on the body. Most of its work is stopping rather than deflecting. a helmet, though , is much thinner because wearing a really thick, heavy helmet would be very tiring. Most helmets deflect rather than stop a penetration and are generally poor at reducing the effect of a penetration once through.
Thus a blow to the head with poll axe or halberd, both of which are designed to penetrate head armour with huge pressure on a hardened spike would do the job!

Of course, if the archaeology comes up with a sword cut to the head it is very likely to be a helmet removed or wrong body situation.

Roy

If armor could be proofed against gunpowder shot a century later, i think we can safely assume higher-end armor could be made arrow-proof in Richard's time.

No, I don't think we can assume that. For all the reasons you give under your point 1.

"pole axes were made to penetrate thick armor of the time." Conversely, the opposite is true. The helmets were made to withstand blows from said pole axes. Otherwise they would not be used and relied on.

Again, I think these are false assumption. We do not know and cannot prove that either helmets of the period really could withstand blows from poll axes and similar weapons or not, as you so carefully point out under point 1. We also do not know whether the wearers thought such helmets gave them impunity against such weapons.

Most historians carefully avoid making such categoric (and ultimately unprovable) assertions.

Poll axes would indeed be completely pointless if they could not penetrate a helmet. Surely the whole point of a poll axe (. Often beautifully designed and made) is to penetrate head armour because the knight's sword will not do this. The knight's other choice is a mace for crushing the head.
Now if I am a knight I would wear a helmet to protect against many weapons, but I would not carry a poll axe that could not pierce head armour as knights did carry poll axes I must assume that they were effective and stood let us say a 30-50% chance of a good square hit penetrating as the chances of getting a hit are relatively small( the other guy is bobbing and weaving and defending himself).
Roy

The idea that armor can evolve continuously and perfectly along with weaponry is a bit flawed (one might even say already disproven). I'll say this with the usual caveats (few of us being experts and metallurgy has changed, etc.), just looking at the back spike of a pole axe…to be invulnerable a solid hit from this by a 15th century warrior your helmet would probably be so thick as to make it immobile. As has been pointed out previously, armor is used in conjunction with a warrior's movement to be most effective. We've all seen a lot of demonstration of people chewing through armor with various weapons when the armor is simply put up on a pole – no living, moving person in it with additional padding underneath. In these demonstrations (where armor is made to stay still) you can see weapons penetrating armor when proper human force is applied. I just don't buy that a 15th century helmet, even the best, is capable of standing up to pole axe spike driven home with proper force.

15th century armour was not thick it was thin, 2mm and less, they had discovered annealing, a heat process that hardens the metal.
The principle function of armour in the 15th century was to deflect the blow not absorb it, just look at a suit of armour all the different plains and slopes, it's the same principle as the slopping armour on a T34 tank.
15th century steel can and has been made recently, it's mostly down to the levels of impurities.
I have no doubt that a 6-8' pole arm wielded by an average 15th century wielder (???) even without taking into account the speed and force multipliers of lever action, hitting high quality armour square on would penetrate it.
Then like now a helmet was they to reduce the risk of head injury not remove the risk entirely, heads get injured inside helmets too.

link

Focus off Richard in this link, but a very good image of the grave site with the Cathedral behind

The arrow is puzzling. Who would chuck an arrow into a 3-way melee? Unless, as suggested, his dead body was being used for gratuitous target practice…

From the BBC website:

MPs discuss Richard III burial

The government has confirmed a skeleton that could be that of Richard III will be interred in Leicester if it is confirmed as the 15th Century king.

The bones were found in September by archaeologists digging beneath a car park in Leicester.

Leicester, Nottinghamshire and York MPs discussed a permanent grave on Friday.

In a written answer, justice minister Helen Grant said the skeleton would be interred at Leicester Cathedral if tests proved it was Richard III.

In response to a question posed by Dan Jarvis, Labour MP for Barnsley, Ms Grant wrote: "My Department issued a licence to exhume human remains which could be those of Richard III.

"Remains have now been exhumed and archaeologists are currently carrying out tests to determine the identity of the remains.

"Should they be found to be those of Richard III, the current plan is for them to be reinterred in Leicester Cathedral."

The problem is this will be the end of Leicester Cathedral. It will stop being Leicester Cathedral & become the Tomb of Richard III. All its existing history will be swamped. This is a big mediaeval church, but tiny compared to a mediaeval cathedral… I cannot conceive where they will put a royal tomb. I suggested consecrating the Magazine Gateway as a royal chapel of rest.

That said, did York or Worksop dig him up? No. Hands off.

Thanks for the updates …

Phil

Typical politician, arrogantly ignoring someone's wishes. Richard expressed a desire to be buried in York Minster so the Justice Minister (what's it got to do with her?) decides to bury him in Leicester! Whatever happened to respecting the wishes of those who have passed over?

Richard was not planning to die in Leicestershire. All prior plans got somewhat disrupted.

On the other hand he does not seem to have haunted Leicester in protest? Who could grumble at decent burial in a Franciscan friary, followed by access to a Leicester City Council parking space? Cushty.

"Whatever happened to respecting the wishes of those who have passed over?"

Best practice with 'archaeological' remains that are to be reinterred – they should go in ground as near to original site as possible. Leicester Cathedral meets this criteria.

"Whatever happened to respecting the wishes of those who have passed over?"

Best practice with 'archaeological' remains that are to be reinterred – they should go in ground as near to original site as possible. Leicester Cathedral meets this criteria.

I see what you're saying but these are not "archaeological remains", not a piece of pottery or a sword, they're the remains of a human being who lived, breathed and has a soul like you and me, whose wishes are known (assuming it's Richard) and should be respected in my opinion.

Passed Over?
If someone died why not say so.
Passed Over sounds like he missed out on a promotion.

Dexter, I used that phrase because of my religious views which are personal and of course TMP is not the place to discuss those matters.

How vigorously are the clergy at the Minster pressing a claim? Creating a royal tomb for Richard will be costly, its all very well referring to a desire to be bjuried in the Minster, but that involves costs & impacts on the building (in terms of tourist traffic, space etc)

I always thought that when a King expressed a "desire" it was normally to be taken as being the same as "this is what is going to happen, full stop, no argueing".

How vigorously are the clergy at the Minster pressing a claim? Creating a royal tomb for Richard will be costly, its all very well referring to a desire to be bjuried in the Minster, but that involves costs & impacts on the building (in terms of tourist traffic, space etc)

I don't know how vigorously the Minster clergy are pressing the claim, I expect they would want confirmation that it is Richard before any campaign to bring him to the Minster for burial began.

Space wouldn't be a problem, the Minster is huge, it's the biggest Gothic cathedral north of the Alps. It gets thousands of visitors every year so I don't think tourist traffic would be too much of a problem either.

Any news on this item and where it stands?

I think this is the latest position (a Leicester burial);

link

At University (Leicester as it happens) a friend of mine studied Medieval History for his degree. I seem to remember him mentioning that Richards armour was very good and that he was killed after being knocked off his feet by multiple dagger thrusts through joints at neck, armpits and groin.

Its a prestige burial in the right place, so it could be Richard. Any idea if he suffered any earlier wounds that could account for the arrowhead?

----I always thought that when a King expressed a "desire" it was normally to be taken as being the same as "this is what is going to happen, full stop, no argueing".-----
-

Not always. Look at what happened to the death wishes of King Edward I as well as the Scottish King,?Bruce?, that wanted his heart buried in Jerusalem.