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

Yes, it was reported in epistles (such as the Bishop of Salisbury, as you indicate) but they repeated (quite accurately it must be admitted) the figures published in the pamphlet. So it is still reporting from a single source.

What I find interesting is that you refuse to entertain the possibility that the reported numbers are self serving. Surely you can see the value that over reporting Lancastrian casualties would go far in suppressing any residual support for the losing side. Do you suppose that the Yorkists were unaware of the importance of propaganda?

While you dismiss (correctly, in my opinion) some of the elevated figures supplied, it is telling that you ignore other contemporary sources that supply low casualty figures, such as the Annales Rerum Anglicarum.
Quote mining and cherry picking data that supports your preconceptions is the mark of an ideologue, and not someone interested in history.

"Never come between a dog and his bone", as the saying goes. Lesson learned. 28,000 dead it is.

Who is this addressed to, me or AlanYork, cos your posts are confusing me, and i am not sure who you are aiming some of your critic at.

Oh could you please return to your original request to answer the battle field size and the armies not fitting into it, as i politely answered you and you have not given me a response, just like the last person who through that one into the topic.

Oh could you please return to your original request to answer the battle field size and the armies not fitting into it, as i politely answered you

It was actually a large site and was much larger in breadth and depth than it looked on the photos I had seen,

So how wide do you reckon the site actually is? 1000m? 1500m? More?

Oh could you please return to your original request to answer the battle field size and the armies not fitting into it, ……..

Sorry, I wasn't the one asking that.

You still have not answered why you think the site is to small!!

You still have not answered why you think the site is too small!!

If that comment is addressed to me,I have already stated my views in my posts of 12 October 6:56am and 2:56pm.

However, coming back to the subject of the number of dead, did anyone else read the Sutherland paper linked to above?

He references the following contemporary documents:
Letter from Nicholas O'Flanagan dated 7 April 1461
Letter from Fancesco Copino dated 27 April 1461
- both of these quote 800 Yorkist dead
Letter from Pigello Portinaro dated 14 April 1461
Letter from Prospero Di Gamilio dated 18 April 1461
- these two quote 8000 dead

Which shows, and as I have already stated, the General 28,000 is not cast in stone, and as already stated from myself and you there is much archaeology to do so as to prove this number or disprove it.
I do believe Tim Sutherland plans to work on burial pits on the battlefield, hopefully it will tell us more in future

I'm not convinced there were 28,000 casualties because it seems there are too many differing reports of how many there actually were, and Sutherland seems to show that there is no number that can be found to be completely convincing currently.

What I'm more convinced of is that Sutherland's theory regarding time, and how it was viewed and communicated then, as compared to now, demonstrates strong evidence decreasing the length of the battle, while increasing the likelihood that the three engagements were all on the same day, and that reports of the fight being all day were actually combining the three engagements into one. However, not sure how much relevance this has to the counting of casualties.

It seems more archaelogical evidence could be helpful, yet the question of casualties might never be answered satisfactorily.

Sutherlands theory certainly has given food for thought and certainly is possible. If his version of events are true it would certainly decrease the length of the battle, but for how long is anyone's guess.