"Why are modern historians lowering the number of Towton dead" Topic

Not sure if this is right place for this, but I know all wargamers and folk who like painting little historical figures are also as much students of history, and this subject has been on my mind for a while and would like to find your thoughts on this.

Most folk in the UK will know of the battle of Towton, so for anyone else it took place on march 29th 1461 in north Yorkshire between the house of York and Lancaster in what is now known as the wars of the roses.

On this day it was reputed and officially accepted by all at the time that 28,000 men perished that day, the bloodiest day in all british history.It is believed 50,000 to 80,000 took part.

This number of slain was given as fact at the time and was totally accepted by all, and was never questioned over the centuries, until into modern times. Why!

Such numbers were never given again in the war of roses or in any battle in this country before or since.

Would the Yorkist regime have given such a high number of dead if it was not possible for such a number. Surely nobody would have believed it at the time had it not been.

Are we modern folk just incapable of grasping such a high number of killed in battle without the aid of machine guns and explosives .

I remember modern thinking regarding Richard III was a victim of Tudor propaganda and did not have a crooked back, until they found him and was proved the old chronicles were correct, could they be correct about Towton.

Any input on this subject from fellow TMPers most welcome

What is the current estimate.?

Just because it was reported and accepted doesn't mean it was true.

On this day it was reputed and officially accepted by all at the time that 28,000 men perished that day,

Where are the bodies?

> Where are the bodies?

Check the nearby parking lots.

This number of slain was given as fact at the time and was totally accepted by all, and was never questioned over the centuries, until into modern times. Why!

I suspect that at the time the chroniclers were not really into "accuracy" as we accept it today. The numbers were merely "very large" and that is all that really mattered.

"Historians" today (as opposed to "chroniclers") are much more analytic (as opposed to telling a moral tale or chastising the Bad Guys (who lost)).

Are we modern folk just incapable of grasping such a high number of killed in battle without the aid of machine guns and explosives .

Possibly they do not believe that such numbers COULD have been assembled on a Medieval battlefield, and fed along the way.

"No one" really believes the numbers attributed to the Persians or Romans or Carthaginians etc either, so don't take it so personally!

Medieval chroniclers certainly had a habit of exaggerating the numbers of participants and casualties in many battles.

Never mind that there was rather limited interest in doing a systematic tally of the bodies immediately after a battle.

This is not fruitful. If your point stands on principal, as you seem to make it by your last lines, then why should we chose Delbruck's logically derived estimates over the numbers given by Herodotus for the Greek and Persian wars? So 1000000 Persians vs. 5-10000 Greeks at Thermopylae must be true because that is what the chronicler told us.

It's pretty endemic to modern thinking. – I wasn't there, I have no scientific proof, I couldn't do it, so it can't be true.

A perfect example of the error in this kind of thinking happened a few years ago. A destroyer reportedly sunk a Japanese mini-sub at very close quarters by holing the conning tower. For years it was insisted that it couldn't be true – that even with modern fire control they couldn't have made the shot. No mini-sub was ever found, until a few years ago, and there was a hole in the con, just like the sailors said.

The motivations for inflated battle numbers are numerous.

1.) If you won, it makes the victory sound more impressive.

2.) If you lost, it makes the defense sound more noble.

3.) If you won, it makes the claim for whatever cause you espoused seem more firm ("Even thirty thousand men could not stand against my right to rule! Surely I have the blessings of Heaven itself behind me!")

4.) If you won, it gives you great propaganda to intimidate any remaining opposition. "I killed thirty thousand men that day— do you think your paltry eight hundred can stop me?"

5.) No matter who you are, the greater the enemy, the more impressive you are to the barmaid. (And if that's successful, later to your kids and grandkids.)

As for "disinterested chroniclers," in an age where the only way a chronicler got paid was through patronage, it never hurt the pocketbook to flatter the king.

It's pretty endemic to modern thinking. – I wasn't there, I have no scientific proof, I couldn't do it, so it can't be true.

This is grossly oversimplifying the argument. No actual academic historian would ever base their argument on such a thing, and if they were trying to allege what the actual numbers would be, would structure their argument based on their interpretation of the evidence available.

Also, I think there is quite a difference between Richard IIIs scoliosis and the mutant hunchback as presented in Shakespere.

Damon.

("Even thirty thousand men could not stand against my right to rule! Surely I have the blessings of Heaven itself behind me!")

I like that one. Definitely gonna use it in my next game. :)

There are two arguments generally used, when suggesting reduced numbers of combatants for Towton.

1. We have never found 28,000 bodies.
2. The numbers claimed to be at Towton were excessively large, amounting to approximately 1% of the population of England at the time.

Argument 1 does not stand on its own, because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Argument 2 may have some merit, because mobilising and supplying such a large number of men could have proven difficult.

The comments about medieval chroniclers not being particularly accurate in their estimates of numbers are valid, and for the reasons given. This is why historians have suggested alternative numbers.

Maybe not 28000 but they have found a fair few.I thought the latest thinking was that it was one of the rare instances where the chroniclers were not exaggerating and based on the lords known to have been involved and the likely sizes of their retinues that these numbers were quite possible.

It was reported during the Victorian period that large quantities of bones were discovered on the surface over the battle field and reburied in Saxton church yard, which shows the people left to bury the dead barely buried some below the surface or the plough exposed them.

When I asked if it was possible 28,000 died that day I was also thinking of the rout which went all they way to York

On this day it was reputed and officially accepted by all at the time that 28,000 men perished that day,

It was reported during the Victorian period that large quantities of bones were discovered on the surface over the battle field and reburied in Saxton church yard

Assume a complete skeleton takes up a space about 5ft by 1ft by 1ft, i.e. 5 cu ft. 28000 bodies would therefore take up 140000 cu ft. In other words 3964 cubic metres. How big is Saxton church yard?

I've read that in Europe it was common to reuse cemeteries. Is the same true in England? In other words, either the buried would be disinterred after a hundred or so years so the plots could be reused, or they were simply stacked up (dirt added naturally or otherwise, and coffins buried on top of the location of others). Could explain the absence of all those bodies – they're either deeper than previously thought or were disinterred and reburied in mass boxes. I would also think that in at least parts of England, bodies would decompose fairly quickly, including the bones.

Some of that 28,000 were simply missing. They showed up recently, claiming to have lost their watches, mislaid their bus passes, stopped to kick a ball about, or gone to the pub and lost track of time.

And yes, they are now very old.

Jeez, whiterose. It's only history!
Why do you seem so personally invested in how many Englishmen got killed?

Jeez, John, I was only wondering, oh and being an Englishman does give me a slight interest if this was really true or not, like many in this country.

The reason that revisions of numbers occur now rather than, say, a hundred years ago, is down to the natureof the histroian's art and the techniques and way of thinking used.

It is right and proper that we question our sources, especially in such matters hwere we know that figures were often (though not always) inflated. If the logic is sound then the argument is valid and the plosition can be defended.

Don't make the mistake that what historians write is fact. It is interpretation based upon the evidence available.

you could try reading the full papers instead of just the headline on its own.

Is the same true in England? In other words, either the buried would be disinterred after a hundred or so years so the plots could be reused, or they were simply stacked up (dirt added naturally or otherwise, and coffins buried on top of the location of others).

Short answer, no. Bodies are not disinterred unless there is a compelling reason to do so (e.g. a criminal investigation) and even then permssion has to be sought from a number of authorities.

Plots are sometimes reused, in the sense that other family members are added to what is effectively a family grave, but otherwise no.

Your problem is that if there really were 28,000 bodies to be disposed of, you have to do so in a short space of time – before they start decomposing. There simply isn't the available sacred ground in the area to do so.

Another thing worth bearing in mind (and is in fact galribgly obvious if you actually visit the battlefield) is that the site simply isn't big enough for the supposed numbers of opposing troops.

Marston Moor (1644) was the largest battle in the ECW and the highest estimates for the opposing sides at that battle are 28,500 Parliamentarians and 23,000 Royalists. Given that the ECW occured 200 years later than Towton after a population explosion and a military revolution, it is highly unlikely that the forces at Towton exceeded those figures. Most modern historians consider approximately 20,000 on each side as being a best estimate.

On this day it was reputed and officially accepted by all at the time that 28,000 men perished that day, the bloodiest day in all british history.

This number of slain was given as fact at the time and was totally accepted by all, and was never questioned over the centuries, until into modern times. Why?

Actually, the chroniclers quote lower figures:
The Neville chronicler quotes 9,000 dead.
Polydore Vergil has a total of 20,000 including prisoners
John of Whethamstede 'more than twice 10,000'

Bodies are not disinterred unless there is a compelling reason to do so (e.g. a criminal investigation) and even then permission has to be sought from a number of authorities.

That is true now, but there is ample archaeological evidence from the medieval period for the reuse of plots in cemeteries, beyond the addition of family members. This includes graves cut through by newer graves and the simple throwing to one side of bones found while cutting these new graves. Gravediggers apparently did not have much respect for people's earthly remains!

Well actually the site is big enough for the presumed numbers, and armies formed up differently in the ECW

That is true now, but there is ample archaeological evidence from the medieval period for the reuse of plots in cemeteries, beyond the addition of family members.

Over the course of hundreds of years possibly, when graves were so old they could not be indentified, but I'm sure the residents of the village of Saxton wold have objected strongly to the desecration of the graves of their loved ones in the church cemetery!

Well actually the site is big enough for the presumed numbers,

Really? Can you find room for 50 – 60,000 per side on a field of battle that is little more than a kilometre wide?

PDF link

and armies formed up differently in the ECW

Indeed they did. In the ECW, there were often six ranks in formed foot units. In the late medieval period it was usually only four ranks.

I'm sure the residents of the village of Saxton would have objected strongly to the desecration of the graves of their loved ones in the church cemetery!

I'm sure they would have, although I would have to check that. I do wonder what importance was placed on the earthly remains in the medieval period. Were they considered important enough not to disturb, or was the soul the important part? Once the body was buried in consecrated ground, was it important that it remain undisturbed? Our modern perceptions indicate that it would have been, but then you get groups like the Quakers, who do not consider the physical remains to be important at all. What was the medieval attitude to the physical remains of a person after they had been buried?

It seems unlikely that the dead from the battle would have been buried in Saxton cemetery anyway, unless they were nobles. The mass burial that was excavated gives a better idea of the sorts of place we should look for the dead.

You can fit 60,000 plus in old Trafford stadium and still fit the pitch in the middle.No one suggested 50-60,000 per side anyway.

I don't believe the dead were buried at Saxton church in the aftermath of the battle, except Lord Dacre, a Lancastrian .We are talking about what was described as large quantities of bones found on the surface in the Victorian times and which were buried en mass in a corner of Saxton church yard, not laid out like a proper burial.

Wukong- I think you are right about the mass burial that was discovered in 1996, this was 1 mile away from the actuall battle sight. It was not very deep and was next to Towton hall yet no one new it was there all these years until it was discovered by workmen digging a foundation. Perhaps there are such burials all the way to Tadcaster and beyond

Wasn't there a show about a mass grave found a Towton in the last year or so? They reconstructed the wounds and such. How many were in that grave, I wonder?

Well the 1996 one reported 37 bodies packed tightly into a small shallow pit, so looks like the poor blokes left with the job of burial were digging shallow pits and filling them with as many bodies from that local area as possible.

I'm lucky enough to live near Towton and having visited the site many times I don't see any problem with fitting in the high number of combatants reported. We don't know how many died there but I do wonder if lowering the total is the same kind of historical revisionism that brought us "Vikings were mainly peaceful settlers and traders", try telling that to the monks on Lindisfarne! I believe the remains are scattered about in grave pits all over the place but it's a big area and who can say where to dig? IMO they should be left to rest in peace anyway.

Medieval Christian thinking was that a body was essential so that it could be resurrected when Christ returns, hence the absence of cremations. This makes disturbance at Saxton churchyard unlikely in my view. These days the belief is that it is not necessary to have a body because the Redeemed will receive new spiritual bodies, making the old mortal one unnecessary.

'Jeez, whiterose. It's only history!
Why do you seem so personally invested in how many Englishmen got killed?'

Would you say that about an ACW or AWI battle?

No one suggested 50-60,000 per side anyway.

.It is believed 50,000 to 80,000 took part.

Ah, OK you meant 50 – 80,000 in total. So your maximum figure is atill 40,000 per side.

I'm lucky enough to live near Towton and having visited the site many times I don't see any problem with fitting in the high number of combatants reported.

I find that view most surprising. If you consider that a fighting man probably occupied about a 1m frontage (i.e. with sufficient room to wield weapons), then 40,000 men deployed on a 1.5 km wide battlefield would require them to be in 26 ranks! That is plainly ludicrous.

One of the problems of visiting a battlefield is that the landscape we see now is often completely different from what it looked like 500 years ago. ( Consider the problem of finding Bosworth. Where is the marsh? ) The suggestion is that the ground to the east of the London road was substantially wooded in the 15th century (see the map I linked to above). This therefore limits the width of the battlefield with Cock Beck to the west and the woods to the east.

We are talking about what was described as large quantities of bones found on the surface in the Victorian times and which were buried en mass in a corner of Saxton church yard, not laid out like a proper burial.

We have no idea how many bodies are represented by "large quantities of bones", but the fact that they were "buried en mass in a corner of Saxton church yard" suggests that there could not have been anything like 28,000 bodies. As I showed above, you need an awful lot of space to bury that many bodies. Even if we allow that these are only bones and therefore do not occupy as much space as a complete body then an indivdual skeleton would probably occupy as much as 1.25 cu ft. 28,000 such skeletons would therefore still require 991 cu. metres. That's a rather lot more than a "corner of Saxton church yard".

On this day it was reputed and officially accepted by all at the time that 28,000 men perished that day, the bloodiest day in all british history.It is believed 50,000 to 80,000 took part.

Reading the OP again, another thought:
28,000 casualties out of a total of 50,000 engaged = 56%
28,000 casualties out of a total of 80,000 engaged = 35%

Both those figures are EXTREMELY high for casualty rates in 15th century battles. And they get even worse if you consider that the opposing armies were probably about the same size and that the Lancastrians suffered the bulk of the casualties.

In other words a total of 28,000 casualties makes very little sense even if there were up to 80,000 involved.
For a consideration of this sort of calculation see "Lost Battles" by Prof. Phil Sabin.

I find that view most surprising. If you consider that a fighting man probably occupied about a 1m frontage (i.e. with sufficient room to wield weapons), then 40,000 men deployed on a 1.5 km wide battlefield would require them to be in 26 ranks! That is plainly ludicrous.

1.The armies were deployed in multiple deep lines. The Osprey book gives a good illustration of this. There's no reason IMO to believe 4 ranks was as deep as they went. If more men come along then they file into the back, deepening the formation.

2.Troops were hidden in Castle Wood away from the main battle area.

3.Norfolk arrived late with his contingent so not all the men were there fighting at the same time, thousands would have died before he turned up.

4.Nearly all the nobility of England was there.

It doesn't look ludicrous to me.

I have visited the site a few times in the past and it is clear the place could fit the numbers of combatants. English armies formed three battles in those days and for this battle it would seem having depth in numbers was the order of the day, with each battle formed behind the other, rather than side by side.

Major Bumsore- This battle as in most of the time was about forming solid walls of unbreakable steel and Towton was by all accounts a cramped battle, and the reports of the time confirm this ,it say's So great was the slaughter that the corpses formed a positive impediment to the living,the dead and dying forming a wall between the two sides.

And once again who said 28,000 sets of bones were buried at Saxton, they weren't. Just large ammounts according to the Victorians.

As AlanYork has mentioned and i agree, many are probably buried in pits all over the place similar to the one found in 1996 and probably all the way to Tadcaster and beyond.

Tadcaster was also reputedly a place of much slaughter of the Lancastrian fugitives when many tried to put up a fight against their Yorkist pursuers or were drowned trying to swim across the river Wharfe as the bridge there was reportedly broken by the fleeing Lancastrian command to slow up the Yorkists pursuit, the Lancastrian Nobles who clearly mounted their horses and bolted the battlefield when they seen things not going their way clearly did not give a damn for their poor foot soldiers fleeing behind them, who were left with the choice of turning on their pursuers and fighting or attempting to swim the freezing waters of the Wharfe, which reputedly claimed more drowning's than the smaller shallower stream cock beck.

So it is plain to see their is not 28,000 sets of skeletons lying in Saxton church or indeed on the battlefield its self

1.The armies were deployed in multiple deep lines.

What evidence can you offer to support that view?

What purpose do "multiple deep lines" serve? Only the guys at the front can actually fight.

4.Nearly all the nobility of England was there.

Indeed they were. But what we don't know is how many men each brought with them.

Major Bumsore- This battle as in most of the time was about forming solid walls of unbreakable steel

I don't know ehat you mean by "solid walls of unbreakable steel". We are no longer dealing with shield walls.

and Towton was by all accounts a cramped battle, and the reports of the time confirm this,

Agreed. It would have been cramped even with 20,000 on each side.

it say's So great was the slaughter that the corpses formed a positive impediment to the living,the dead and dying forming a wall between the two sides.

Dramatic license perhaps?

As AlanYork has mentioned and i agree, many are probably buried in pits all over the place similar to the one found in 1996 and probably all the way to Tadcaster and beyond.

That is possibly true, but we haven't found any more yet. The 1996 discovery found 43 bodies. If there were 28,000 casualties you need another 650 similar grave pits…

Admiitedly absence of evidence is not evidence of absence but is not noteworthy that there are no records of other church yard burials similar to Saxton in any of the churches between Saxton and Tadcaster?

1.The armies were deployed in multiple deep lines.
What evidence can you offer to support that view?

What purpose do "multiple deep lines" serve? Only the guys at the front can actually fight.

4.Nearly all the nobility of England was there.
Indeed they were. But what we don't know is how many men each brought with them.

They serve the purpose of reserves and increasing morale and resolve of those in the front line. Most maps of Towton will show 3 deep lines per side, check out Fatal Colours by George Goodwin and Towton by Christopher Gravett for examples but there are other publications that show pretty much the same thing. That also corresponds with the usual 3 "battles" deployed front to back rather than side by side due to the constricted landscape. I see no reason to query the accepted view on this.

I'd be very careful about dismissing contemporary chronicles as "dramatic licence". We certainly shouldn't take them as "gospel truth" without corroborative evidence but there is a certain arrogance in dismissing the accounts of people who were there at the time due to thinking that we are somehow more enlightened and know better. No personal attack should be inferred there I should say.

We are no longer dealing with shield walls.

Correct

Nope, we are dealing with men standing shoulder to shoulder with long pole arms of halberds, bills and pole axes pointing at you.

Corpses formed a positive impediment to the living

I don't think that is dramatic licence in this battle, why was it not used in any other battle in the war of roses.

Most maps of Towton will show 3 deep lines per side, check out Fatal Colours by George Goodwin and Towton by Christopher Gravett for examples but there are other publications that show pretty much the same thing. That also corresponds with the usual 3 "battles" deployed front to back rather than side by side due to the constricted landscape. I see no reason to query the accepted view on this.

Yes, I've seen the maps of the battle with those three deep lines you describe. However, what evidence is there to support this deployment? The whole idea of the three (sometimes four) battles was that they were supposed to deploy left, centre, right (and if there was a fourth, as reserve). It is unusual to say the least for those three battles to deploy one behind the other. So unusual that we should expect one or more of the chroniclers to mention such a deployment. As far as I am aware that is not the case. Yes, I know it's yet another "absence of evidence" argument, but unless there is some evidence then anything we historians might say is just conjecture.

Nope, we are dealing with men standing shoulder to shoulder with long pole arms of halberds, bills and pole axes pointing at you.

You don't stand shoulder to shoulder if you are wielding a bill, halberd or poll axe. All those weapons need SPACE in order to fight with them. Anything from 4 to 6ft per man.

Corpses formed a positive impediment to the living

I don't think that is dramatic licence in this battle, why was it not used in any other battle in the war of roses.

Perhaps not, but it certainly occurs more than once in chronicles of the battles of the Hundred Years War. Remember that Towton occurs only a few years after the start of the WOTR and so the model for writing about battles (particularly if you were not an eye witness) would be those accounts.

You don't stand shoulder to shoulder!

How do you know, in a condensed mass battle like this, the shoulder to shoulder with weopons pointing outwards was a well known method, all the men had to do was give a hard thrust and it saves energy, also your enemy will find it harder to break into the formation than if they are spaced out fighting gladiator style.
Having said that I think as the battle wore on and the formations became more ragged and holes began to appear in the lines it likely did become more gladiatorial combat.

Having said that I think as the battle wore on and the formations became more ragged and holes began to appear in the lines it likely did become more gladiatorial combat.

But if the troops were packed as densely as you and AlanYork suggest that would not be possible.

It certainly was possible when the Lancastrians army began to break up

Yes, I've seen the maps of the battle with those three deep lines you describe. However, what evidence is there to support this deployment? The whole idea of the three (sometimes four) battles was that they were supposed to deploy left, centre, right (and if there was a fourth, as reserve). It is unusual to say the least for those three battles to deploy one behind the other. So unusual that we should expect one or more of the chroniclers to mention such a deployment. As far as I am aware that is not the case. Yes, I know it's yet another "absence of evidence" argument, but unless there is some evidence then anything we historians might say is just conjecture

There's no evidence whatsoever that Towton was a smaller battle than the medieval sources tell us, other than the "we know better" attitude of modern revisionist historians. Until I see conclusive evidence that Towton was smaller I will stick with the widely accepted analysis of the primary sources which says that Towton was a huge slaughter with many thousands dead, the biggest battle on English soil.

On that note I will leave you and whiterose to it.

There's no evidence whatsoever that Towton was a smaller battle than the medieval sources tell us,

As a matter of interest what do the medieval sources actually tell us?

"Using the criteria of the size of the battlefield and the list of names in King Edward's list of attainders, Boardman concluded that a reasonable number of household and feed men would be some 20,000 on the Lancastrian side, plus about 5,000 or more raised by commissions of array and also to include foreign mercenaries. This gives a total of about 25,000 men. The Yorkists, without Norfolk's division, perhaps started from London with some 15,000 men but by the time they reached Ferrybridge this could have risen to around 20,000 as fresh contingents joined the marching columns."
Towton 1461, England'd Bloodiest Battle, Christopher Gravett, Osprey 2003, p26.

See also Michael Miller on the subject:
link