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

John Sadler estimates 55,000 to 65,000 total combatants

Hall, Haigh and Colonel Burne estimate total combatants at 75,000

Boardman estimates the lowest at 45,000 maximum and although his Towton book is superb he is kind of on his own with the estimates of each army.

John Sadler estimates 55,000 to 65,000 total combatants

Hall, Haigh and Colonel Burne estimate total combatants at 75,000

Boardman estimates the lowest at 45,000 maximum and although his Towton book is superb he is kind of on his own with the estimates of each army.

Which probably only goes to show that expert opinion is divided.

Burne has been shown to be inaccurate in a number of cases.
Haigh cannot even get his maps right, so I have little faith in anything he says.

Brooks tends to agree with Boardman's figures so he is not entirely alone.

Perhaps John Sadler estimate is correct. I don't believe 80,000 to 100,000 fought at Towton .
It is believed 30,000 to 35,000 may have fought at Barnet and unlike Towton, Barnet did not involve almost all the Nobility so how many would be mustered when the entire country was involved with two kings in the country issuing commissions of array. As I have mentioned unlike many battles in the war of roses this involved almost the entire country, being a case of your either for one king or the other and no sitting it out on the fence.

You are correct Burne is inaccurate in some cases and perhaps followed Hall in his numbers.

Haigh also has inaccuracies just like everyone else who has tried to unlock what is a very difficult period with such scant facts, but he does compile all the battles in one book and is very informative.

It is believed 30,000 to 35,000 may have fought at Barnet

According to The Battlefields Trust, the best estimate for the total engaged at Barnet was ~27,000.
link

Yes and also gives Yorkist losses of 5,000 and Lancastrian losses of 10,000 which totals 15,000. So on that ratio of combatants who took part its worse than Towton

Yes and also gives Yorkist losses of 5,000 and Lancastrian losses of 10,000 which totals 15,000.

Where does it say that?

Try reading the Key facts section at the bottom

Try reading the Key facts section at the bottom

Hmm … thanks I missed that.

In contrast, Brooks quotes ~10,000 Yorkists vs. ~13,000 Lancastrians with losses of 1500 and 2000 respectively.

Chroniclers tended to use numbers as figurayiover values rathet than literal ones, so 30 often meant 'a bunch', 300 meant ' a big bunch' 3000 meant a really big munch and 30000 meant a really gigantic bunch while 100,000 just meant an even more gigantic bunch.
It is sometimes more useful to turn to record material and if that's lacking, to compare the size of forces of around the same period and with the same sort of political/social support. English armies in France or Scotland seldom exceeded 15-18,000 and many were rather smaller than that, though there would be a modest number of men who did not appear on pay rolls etc because they were serving for pardons or – in the case of some great lords – chose to serve without pay because it was demeaning.
The WotR are really somewhat out of my period, but it would be interesting to know what sort of record material has survived – there may not be any of course.

That is a big contrast. Perhaps Brooke is near the mark on casualties, but who knows, not even the battle field trust can seem to get facts right. Our contradicting each other with different so called facts and using other peoples wildly different theories and judgements has really shown that not even the so called experts can agree on the full truth of this battle.

I still believe the few limited reports of the time and the folklore of walls of dead, and rivers running red with blood

Major Bumsore we have proved in this argument that the so called modern day experts cannot even be used for reference, their opinions are so different and it simply is because they haven't a clue, and until some major discoveries are made to contradict otherwise i go by the accounts and reports of the battle given by word of mouth by those who were there and alive at the time. Now surely you could not argue with that!

Uglyfatbloke- At Flodden In 1513 the Earl of Surry went against the Scots with 26,000 men who were mostly called up mostly from the Northern counties only and at short notice, and that was only 52 years after Towton.

Perhaps Brooke is near the mark on casualties, but who knows, not even the Battlefields Trust can seem to get facts right.

I have no idea who Brooke is. I was quoting Brooks. Richard Brooks. The Trust web site is out of date and is woefully in need of a general overhaul and update.

I still believe the few limited reports of the time and the folklore of walls of dead, and rivers running red with blood

Yes, indeed, folklore. It doesn't take that many dead to cause a river to "run red with blood".

their opinions are so different and it simply is because they haven't a clue

I find it hard to see how can you accuse them of not having a clue when they are actually approaching the problem from different directions and thus coming to different conclusions. Or do you also have a PhD in History?

and until some major discoveries are made to contradict otherwise i go by the accounts and reports of the battle given by word of mouth by those who were there and alive at the time. Now surely you could not argue with that!

What eye witness accounts are you referring to?

At Flodden In 1513 the Earl of Surrey went against the Scots with 26,000 men

Again, Brooks has about 20,000 on each side at Flodden.

Well according to you looks like Brooks is right with it all

You stick with him and I will stick to the accounts of the time.

I made the argument of why modern arrogance is rubbishing the word of our ancestors and you have totally played along with it, using the very same modern opinions as an argument .
And using the battlefields trust statistics on Barnet is the perfect example of this, oh dear its out of date we really must revise those casualty figures, er yes we know in our KEY FACTSwe said 15,000 men were killed but actually our KEY FACTS were wrong, er sorry.

Point proved

You stick with him and I will stick to the accounts of the time.

Brooks (quite rightly) bases his calculations of force strengths on the primary source material i.e. the accounts of the time.

I made the argument of why modern arrogance is rubbishing the word of our ancestors and you have totally played along with it, using the very same modern opinions as an argument .

Yes, I have because you seem to be totally unable to appreciate that informed historians have changed their minds (or perhaps I should say, improved their understanding) by going back to the original source material and re-evaluating it in the light of modern methods.

Your approach seems to be "the chroniclers are infallible, live with it", whereas, as has been amply demonstrated above, even the chroniclers do not agree on what they are supposed to have seen!

And using the Battlefields Trust statistics on Barnet is the perfect example of this, oh dear its out of date we really must revise those casualty figures, er yes we know in our KEY FACTSwe said 15,000 men were killed but actually our KEY FACTS were wrong, er sorry.

I don't think I ever said the Battlefields Trust or its web site were infallible? Any more than I have said that any other secondary source is infallible? All I have done above is quote various sources and examples to show that there is a wide and varied view on any of these topics depending on who/what you read.

IMHO it is impossible to be categoric about any battlefield figures for force size or casualties for the WOTR. Yes, I tend to favour Mr. Brooks' interpretations, but that is because, having read his book, I can understand where he is deriving his figures from (the original source material) and therefore I think he is generally on the right track.

BTW, you keep mentioning "accounts of the time" and "eye witness accounts" but so far, you have not identified any such accounts in relation to Towton? So what are you basing your assertions on?

Try looking for them, your good at finding modern ones

Point proved

Try looking for them, you're good at finding modern ones

Sorry, but that's just a cop out on your part. If you can't produce references to the sources you claim to rely on, then how I can I verify what you say?

Point proved

Agreed. I think I have proved mine.

Its great to see such a lively debate thought this may be of interest

link

Andy, thanks for that very interesting.

Major Bumsore, 7th April 1461, George Neville, Bishop of Exeter( Earl of Warwicks brother) wrote a letter to Francesco Coppini papal legate saying from what we hear from persons worthy of confidence some 28,000 persons perished on one side and another. I will give you full version if you like

7th april Richard Beauchamp Bishop of Salisbury in his report to Coppini -The Heralds counted 28,000 slain, a number unheard of in our realm. I will give you full version if you wish.

The Croyland chronicler gives some very interesting details of the battle including how the snow melted the following day, mingling with the blood and running down into furrows and ditches in a most shocking manner. If you read what this chronicler wrote of the battle it appears the details are from those that were there. Only problem is he wrote 38,000 perished which was clearly a mistake, not even I will try to argue that number.

These are the earliest surviving accounts and two by Bishops, a very high and official position in those days.

They are admittedly Yorkist accounts , non known to exist from the defeated side which may show just how thoroughly defeated they were.

One must always be cautious with figures given in medieval/ancient sources. They are basically all "crowd estimates" which even today are often inaccurate.

Only on a few occasions were actual counts made. We have some information from the Hundred Years War were both sides but esp the English kept "pay roll" counts. In general where we have been able to check, the chroniclers are often much to large in their estimates – but in some cases they had access to "official" information and can be useful.

Primary sources for the War of the Roses are scant, late and tinged with propaganda. So be esp cautious.

Ann Curry has just finished her Bosworth project and is now turning to Towton. She has done pioneering work on the numbers at Agincourt (esp French) and is quite good at digging out evidence on these issues from official records which tend to be far more accurate than even informed guesses.

One note on WOR battles: both sides had massed yeoman archers and this tends to raise the causalty totals. Shrewsbury (sort of a pre-WOR battle) is a good example where the winning side may have lost more than the losers. Generally in muscle powered battles one side routs and suffers disproportionate losses. WOR arrow storms tended to increase the losses on both sides. So high numbers may be correct (thought we should think of 28K as a "large number" not a literal body count).

TomT

Thomas Thomas thanks for your input. I think you are right about the archers, Henry V at shrewsbury ( Prince Hal at the time) was almost killed with an arrow to the face.

You are right primary sources are scant so I go on what was given as fact at the time. Indeed their was a lot of propaganda but I would say this, People are always saying the contempary sources and death tolls in these battles of the war of roses are over inflated for propaganda but actually none of the other battles claim anything near such numbers, the only other high count being East stoke in 1487 with a reputed 7,000 to 8,000 killed, so it would seem to me their is no actual deceit being played out by the people of the time

7th April 1461, George Neville, Bishop of Exeter( Earl of Warwicks brother) wrote a letter to Francesco Coppini papal legate saying from what we hear from persons worthy of confidence some 28,000 persons perished on one side and another. I will give you full version if you like

"What we hear from persons of confidence". So this was hearsay and not an eye witness account.

7th april Richard Beauchamp Bishop of Salisbury in his report to Coppini -The Heralds counted 28,000 slain, a number unheard of in our realm. I will give you full version if you wish.

Unfortunately, this is "reported action". The "Heralds counted 28,000 slain". As Thomas Thomas has said even now it is difficult to estimate actual large numbers and we do not know if Salisbury had this report directly from the Heralds or received it at several removes. Everyone knows that figures like this passed by word of mouth tend to get exaggerated at every step. So even though he says "The Heralds counted 28,000 slain", we don't know how accurate that statement is.

You are right primary sources are scant so I go on what was given as fact at the time.

Not given as fact. It's a bit like somebody asking how many people were at the football match and getting the answer "thousands".

People are always saying the contemporary sources and death tolls in these battles of the Wars of the Roses are over inflated for propaganda

True, but perhaps particularly so in the case of Towton – it was the battle that put Edward IV on the throne.

but actually none of the other battles claim anything near such numbers,

No, and that is exactly what makes these figures so suspicious.

so it would seem to me there is no actual deceit being played out by the people of the time

No, they were not being intentionally misleading, but they were not providing accurate casualty returns either. As far as we know, nobody went round actually counting the bodies … Yes, the Heralds are reputed to have done so but we do not have any records of their count, so we do not know whether they did in fact make a count, or whether the count was an estimate rather than a physical counting of noses.

Three separate contemporary sources give 28,000 or 38,000 as a possible mistake for 28,000 and that still isn't good enough evidence? Because they weren't physically there? Well we may as well discount Alexander the Great's historians Arrian, Curtius, Plutach, Diodorus and Justin then because they weren't actually there either.

Let's turn it around. If the revisionists say these figures are exaggerated by hearsay, where is the proof of that? They have different casualty numbers? OK, what are they? And where is their proof? Not just modern theory, actual contemporary source proof. Until they can come up with a definite number and something concrete to back it up then it's all just so much noise really.

You're right whiterose, it's modern arrogance thinking that we know better and our ancestors were liars, fools or they couldn't count. All the revisionists have is theories and queries but no contemporary primary sources to back up their ideas. Inconveniently for them, those sources are all with us.

If the revisionists say these figures are exaggerated by hearsay, where is the proof of that? They have different casualty numbers? OK, what are they? And where is their proof?

All the revisionists have is theories and queries but no contemporary primary sources to back up their ideas. Inconveniently for them, those sources are all with us.

I've already quoted these but to save you the bother of reading the thread again:

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'

As you can see there is a wide variation of reported losses in the primary sources.

Well said AlanYork.

MajorBumsore- The battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury put Edward IV back on the throne after he was turfed of it and he destroyed the Lancastrians for good but we don't get any large numbers of killed like in the Towton campaign, so saying Towton put him on the throne was his excuse to put about one of the biggest lies in our history is laughable.

Polydore Vergil was writing half a century after the battle so how do you count him as a primary source, he really must have been writing on hearsay

How can you say the written letters in the immediate aftermath of Towton, written by people of high office and the only original documents are nothing but lies and are worthless. You say they are just hearsay, just as well we live in the modern age and have UN inspectors or Assad gassing his own people would have been just hearsay and a pack of lies

of interest regarding this subject
link

andy ,thanks that looks very interesting, definitely be tuning in .

How can you say the written letters in the immediate aftermath of Towton, written by people of high office and the only original documents are nothing but lies and are worthless.

How can you say they are accurate?

And I did not say they are nothing but lies and worthless. I simply pointed out that in the absence of a documented recorded body count, the figure quoted is unsubstantiated.

Polydore Vergil was writing half a century after the battle so how do you count him as a primary source, he really must have been writing on hearsay

"Primary sources are original materials. They are from the time period involved and have not been filtered through interpretation or evaluation. Primary sources are original materials on which other research is based. They are usually the first formal appearance of results"
link

Primary sources in a historical context are usually regarded as anything written within living memory of the event being recorded.

You quote Hall above. The Chronicle of Edward Hall is one of the accounts by a Tudor writer that first appeared in 1548 although it had been completed a decade earlier (i.e. 70 years after the battle).

I asked why are they being disbelieved by modern thinking, as if people today know better and yes I do think the figures and descriptions given in the three contempary documents I mentioned above rate far higher over any other, either Tudor writers or modern.

Even though they were written only 9 days after the battle you keep going to the same attitude of But they were only written on hearsay, of course they were written down on word of mouth, how else was the battle to be reported in those days.

Who said I thought they were accurate,

Well, either you think the figures are accurate or you don't. If you do, on what do you base that belief? If you don't then you are perhaps more willing to consider other (lower) figures?

I asked why are they being disbelieved by modern thinking,

Historians are by their very nature sceptical. There is no substantiated proof that the figures quoted by the Bishops or the Croyland chronicle are accurate casualty returns. From a historical analytical point of view they are only hearsay.

Given that there are a number of factors that call the figures into question, it is right that historians reassess the information contained in their reports rather than just accept it on blind faith.

as if people today know better and yes I do think the figures and descriptions given in the three contempary documents I mentioned above rate far higher over any other, either Tudor writers or modern

It's not about people today "knowing better", it's about people today applying the rules of evidence to what amount to affidavits.

The case of the Bishops is strengthened by the fact that their reports were written immediately after the battle, but that in itself raises quoestions of accuracy since even today casualty figures get revised after the event. "Bomb explodes. 200 people killed" and then a few days later "150 people have now been confirmed as killed in the recent bomb explosion".

Historians look for corroboration – how many people also attest to a particular fact? Aha you say, the two Bishops agree! But hang on, how do you know if one didn't get the figure from the other? (In other words, they are not necessarily independent witnesses. Come to that, I'm not even sure if either of them were actually present at the battle?)

Note that I have not said that the figure of 28,000 dead is categorically wrong. Just that the substantiated evidence to support that figure (and indeed much else about this battle) is woefully thin.

I happen to think that the actual casualty lists at Towton were lower than 28,000, but I cannot prove that position, any more than you can prove that 28,000 is accurate.

But they were only written on hearsay, of course they were written down on word of mouth, how else was the battle to be reported in those days?

Well, assuming the Heralds did actually carry out a reasonably accurate count of the dead and had produced a written record of that and that document was available to us today, it would be a very strong case and not based on word of mouth. Sadly they didn't … and so we are still left with the imponderables that there is a huge amount that we DON'T know about this battle.

Come to that, there is a lot we don't know about a lot of other battles of the period. Look at how for centuries people were saying that the battlefield of Bosworth was at Ambion Hill and now it has been proved to be 1.5 miles away? Tim Sutherland is doing a terrific job at researching the archaeology of Towton – the 43 bodies at Towton Hall, the gun fragments found in 2010, but there is still a huge amount to do …

I thought it might be beneficial, having wandered around the subject for >80 posts to revisit your original questions:

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 think this has been adequately covered above. Modern historians are trained not to accept everything recorded in history as fact. In previous centuries the attitude was different.

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

And there in itself lies a problem. The figures for Towton are so disproportionately high compared to every other battle of the period, that their veracity is called into question. (As mentioned before, see Prof Phil Sabin's book "Lost Battles" for an in depth analysis of this aspect of historiography.)

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.

Maybe they would? Who in England at the time knew how big the population was? To most hearers the reported casualties were just a big number.

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 don't think so. 60,000 were killed on the first day of the Somme – more than twice as many as the reputed 28,000 at Towton.

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

Yes, and the field of Bosworth was not actually where everybody thought it was. Swings and roundabouts.

could they be correct about Towton?

Who knows?

28,000 killed was the general number given at the time, i simply asked why is there a modern trend to lower this number. I have a keen interest in the period and Towton but i am no expert.

For what its worth I would be inclined to go with a higher estimate simply because no modern opinion has provided real proof to the contrary, just mere opinion.
I would happily accept new evidence to contradict the high death toll. Bosworth is a fine example of this, new sight and even Richard III himself, all proven with archaeology, and science, and Towton really needs a breakthrough, the 43 skeletons found in 1996 were a breakthrough, although 43 skeletons in a hole does not provide any evidence at all to the 28,000 claimed.

I also think Tim Sutherland (and the Towton battlefield society) are doing a great job, he seems to be doing more than anyone else has ever done in digging up the truth .The gun fragments were a real revelation

Of course modern day historians will reassess the information and come to their own conclusions on the size of the armies and casualty figures, and its only right they should. Without their time and hard efforts we would be non the wiser ourselves.

And there in itself lies a problem. The figures for Towton are so disproportionately high compared to every other battle of the period, that their veracity is called into question

I can see the argument in that, but actually inclines me to believe it for the very reason it stands alone compared to the other battles, although as you state the high number is not a fact cast in stone.

One question though which intrigues me, why would the Yorkists make such claims of Towton. As you say it put Edward IV on the thrown but he had to fight at Barnet and Tewkesbury to put himself back on the thrown, so why not claim the large numbers of killed in those.

This has been an interesting discussion. The "hearsay" argument can be used for any battle including those in modern times so are we to say all casualty figures for every battle since civilisation began are all suspect?

As I said before until the revisionists can come up with a definite figure and use the same standard of proof that they require from our ancestors I will stick with the accounts of people who were around at the time and in the echelons of society that put them in a position whereby they had access to news.

We could go round it all day and not agree so I think the best we can say is that several contemporary sources give figures of 28,000 slain but do not all agree on that figure. Some modern historians believe that to be too high but as yet no definitive proof can be found to back up any revised total.

BTW I don't think Polydore Vergil writing 50 years after the event is even close to being a primary source and "John of Whethamstede 'more than twice 10,000'", yep that looks like a number that fits in with 28,000 to me.

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

As somebody from York I couldn't let this one go lol. Scoliosis isn't a hunchback, it's a side to side curvature. Any visible deformity would have been very slight and easily hidden by clothes. The medical experts working on the king's remains have confirmed this. Of course when Richard's body was stripped after Bosworth even a slight deformity would have been noticed and exaggerated.

Your spot on with the hearsay argument it does not stand up, if it did then almost all of world history is nothing more than untrustworthy word of mouth.

I don't know of any mention of his condition before the Tudors so Perhaps no one ever new Richard III had a severe curvature of the spine until he was stripped naked at Bosworth and his condition exposed for all to see, back in those days such a thing was seen as evil, hence the Tudors propaganda of it. The point I was making is some modern theorists( Certainly the Richard III society of course) and even in documentaries in the past it was claimed he did not have a deformity and it was nothing more than a Tudor smear campaign to blacken his name even further.

Seeing as your from York Alan I would like to say real shame Richard III is to be buried at Leicester, I voted in the Gov e petition for York, it would have been a far more fitting place seeing he was a man of that region, and by all accounts much loved there by the people of York .But of course some may call this mere Hearsay.

There's a Judicial Review in November actually. A group of Richard's distant relatives have successfully applied to the High Court to obtain it. They want Richard to be buried in York as they believe he clearly expressed a desire to be buried in York Minster whereas the people of Leicester threw him into a pit then lost him. The Plantagenet Alliance as they are called must have a reasonable case or the court wouldn't be wasting time and money hearing it but that isn't to say they will win, we'll just have to wait and see.

Personally I agree with them 100% but that's a whole new topic and I'll leave it at that, it's been gone over at length and me and Steve Cooper, who I believe is from Leicester, spent a while debating it on TMP a while back and pretty much let it go and agreed to differ in a gentlemanly way.

The "hearsay" argument can be used for any battle including those in modern times so are we to say all casualty figures for every battle since civilisation began are all suspect?

Unless someone actually went round physically counted noses and recorded all the deaths then very probably, yes. Even in modern times there are those listed as "Missing in Action" – in other words, he is not accounted for and we don't have a body…

As a matter of interest, I have in the last day or so found this very interesting paper by Tim Sutherland. Tim is the archaeologist who probably knows more about this battle than anyone else currently. I tink his analysis and conclusions are thougt provoking to say the least.

PDF link

A very interesting theory, and he could be correct in regards to Clifford. It makes far more sense that he was out scouting for the enemy and was surprised to find some of them actually guarding the bridge at ferrybridge, when he perhaps expected them to be still around Pontefract and determined to attack them on shear impulse rather than a pre planned strategy on the part of the Lancastrians as a hole, and would explain why he was alone and exposed.

As regards the rest of his theory and analysis there is nothing to say he is not correct. His theory is certainly possible in regards to shortening the action time of Ferrybridge, Dintingdale and Towton itself. The 2nd battle of St Albans was fought in a series of pitched battles and actions starting with the Lancastrian ambush of the small Yorkist post at Dunstable followed by night march to St Albans, the attack on the Town and the final action on Barnards Heath, the last two reportedly lasting most of the day, and you can certainly see why some reports say Towton was fought the hole day when they actually may have meant the battle from Ferrybridge to Towton itself.

As for size of Armies and casualty figures he has a long way to go yet, and hopefully more archaeology will answer this.

I don't buy the "all casualty figures are suspect" theory, it would certainly make for very boring history if every single statement had to be qualified by that argument, it can be taken to ridiculous extremes and produce some way out propositions that have no basis in fact but can't actually be disproved. I think at some point you have to decide what you believe the truth to be whilst respecting the right of others to disagree.

If Clifford attacked any Yorkists on impulse that makes sense. We often seem to forget these are human beings we are talking about here, not cardboard characters from history books. These are the Lords or their allies he held responsible for the death of his father at the 1st Battle of St Albans. He probably got carried away in a desire for revenge.

That kind of human reaction explains Richard's charge at Bosworth too. A man who has just lost his wife and his son probably feels like he has nothing left to lose and somewhere in his mind he would've been thinking "to hell with it".

You make a good point about these people are human beings rather than historical cardboard cut outs. Impulsive and rash reactions are very much a human trait and what you read about in these battles is just that. The Duke of York at Wakefield is a good example. I think the people then were far more sharper and reactive with their instincts due to a harsher world.
Talking of Richard IIIs seemingly impulsive charge into the thickest press of his enemies , perhaps this might explain why Richard Duke of York found himself in the thickest press of his enemies at Wakefield. Like father like son.
Just simply human

28,000 killed was the general number given at the time, ……….

To be more accurate, 28,000 killed was the general number given at the time that you personally agree with.

……..i simply asked why is there a modern trend to lower this number.

I disagree with this premise. If there is a modern trend, it is to correlate all the available evidence and provide a more accurate assessment of what happened. In this case the "modern trend" is to produce a more accurate number of dead ……..which in this case seems to be lower.

I'd like to see a response to Major Bumsore's Oct 12, 4:21am, and Oct 15, 6:05 entries, if you would be so kind.

Being Canadian I have no dog in this race, but I think this entire thread would be a useful tool to teach the concept of "confirmation bias" to history students.

If there is a modern trend, it is to correlate all the available evidence and provide a more accurate assessment of what happened. In this case the "modern trend" is to produce a more accurate number of dead ……..which in this case seems to be lower.

All they can produce is an opinion, they are working with the same sources as previous historians. The idea that they can be more accurate at a distance of over 500 years than the primary sources who broadly agree on 28,000 would seem to be presumptuously arrogant IMO. Besides, there are modern historians who agree with the 28,000 dead theory.

When credible evidence to back up a revision is produced I'd be happy to look at it. Until then I will take the generally agreed total given by informed sources at the time over the theories of historians who would not be born for another five centuries.

To be more accurate, 28,000 killed was the general number given at the time that you personally agree with

No, 28,000 is the generally agreed number. With the greatest of respect because I'm not trying to start a flame war, who agrees with it and who doesn't is irrelevant.

Re your query about Major Bumsore's posting if you are thinking about the numbers fitting into the space available I gave what I thought was a reasonable explanation of it a little further down. If you're referring to the location of the bodies my guess would be that there are many grave pits still waiting to be discovered or lost due to ploughing or development.

I thought I already had responded about numbers fitting the site. You being a Canadian I guess you have never walked over the place, as I have. It was actually a large site and was much larger in breadth and depth than it looked on the photos I had seen, 50,000 to 75,000 could easily have arrayed there and as I said before and now again for you, Manchester United's old Trafford stadium can fit more than that and still have plenty of room for the pitch with just 22 people to kick a ball about.
I think the argument about how many could fit in there is rather stupid anyway, that argument sounds as if your saying the two armies had marked out the area they would fight in with tape (like the police do at the scene of a crime) and any soldier going through it was disqualified.
Laughable

As for your talk about modern theories and evidence proving it was far less, well what evidence. They are just theories with no real evidence to back them. I have already stated that real evidence changes everything as it has at Bosworth.

28,000 killed that you personally agree with

The Generally accepted figure of 28,000 as of today has not been disproved. There for it pretty much stands until the evidence is provided to counter it, which to date has not.

Therefore as of date the word of our ancestors and the legends of this battle still rank higher than any modern theories put out 550+ years later.

No, 28,000 is the generally agreed number.

Because it was reported in a pamphlet, and mentioned by Edward shortly after?

Don't you think this argument has already gone through all this!!
It was reported in more than a pamphlet, see above.