Richard III wins the Battle of Bosworth

Teejay · Sep 9, 2014

The POD is that instead of Richard III being killed at Bosworth field, Henry Tudor (OTL Henry VII) is killed instead. Because in OTL according to descriptions of the battle, this almost occurred to Henry.

As I see the rest of Richard III's reign is going to as secure (or even more so) than Henry VII's was. In that he is not likely to face rebellion after rebellion which occurred in the reign of Henry VII.

Since the type of people who supported especially the Simnel and Perbeck rebellions in OTL would be supporting Richard III. Also after the death of Henry Tudor the Lancastarian cause is extinguished.

In this timeline the dual marriages of Richard III and Joanna, Princess of Portgual, along with Elizabeth of York and the Duke of Beja (future King Manuel I) would go ahead. Given that Joanna died in 1490 in OTL, Richard will be looking for another wife. The other daughters of Edward IV get married off to various supporters of Richard.

Driftless · Sep 9, 2014

Disclaimer - I have very limited knowledge of this period of English history....

Does R3 surviving and the Tudor dying, significantly change the historic outlook on R3? He goes from being a Shakespearean villain to ???

History is usually written by the winners, ya know.

Mikestone8 · Sep 9, 2014

Driftless said:
Disclaimer - I have very limited knowledge of this period of English history....

Does R3 surviving and the Tudor dying, significantly change the historic outlook on R3? He goes from being a Shakespearean villain to ???

History is usually written by the winners, ya know.

Depends what his successors are like.

After all, things didn't really start happening until the next generation. Henry VII is remembered more for the deeds of his son and granddaughters than for his own. It's probably the same with Richard. If his successors make the changes that the Tudors did, he's remembered as the founder of a great line. If they lose the throne, he's a footnote.

Just a Rube · Sep 9, 2014

Teejay said:
The POD is that instead of Richard III being killed at Bosworth field, Henry Tudor (OTL Henry VII) is killed instead. Because in OTL according to descriptions of the battle, this almost occurred to Henry.

As I see the rest of Richard III's reign is going to as secure (or even more so) than Henry VII's was. In that he is not likely to face rebellion after rebellion which occurred in the reign of Henry VII.

Since the type of people who supported especially the Simnel and Perbeck rebellions in OTL would be supporting Richard III. Also after the death of Henry Tudor the Lancastarian cause is extinguished.

I'd think he'd probably face at least one more major rebellion. Richard had a knack for alienating people and plenty of surviving enemies (most of Henry's supporters at Bosworth were former Yorkists, after all). Furthermore, someone claiming to be either the Princes in the Tower or Warwick would have a legitimate claim, and could thus become a rebel figurehead even if the Lancastrian line is extinct (especially since, as noted, few of Henry's prominent supporters were diehard Lancastrians anyway). And both France and Scotland will have incentives to shelter pretenders.

Remember that while some of the rebels against Henry VII may have been motivated by loyalty to the Yorkist cause, most were motivated by more general concerns (e.g. taxes). That doesn't necessarily mean that Richard will lose (Henry Tudor survived those revolts after all), but it does suggest his reign will hardly be a long period of peace.

Mikestone8 · Sep 9, 2014

Teejay said:
As I see the rest of Richard III's reign is going to as secure (or even more so) than Henry VII's was. In that he is not likely to face rebellion after rebellion which occurred in the reign of Henry VII.

How do you mean "rebellion after rebellion"?

There were a couple of risings in 1486-7, but not much after that as I recall. Perkin Warbeck wandered around Europe making a nuisance of himself, but not until 1497 was he able to launch a revolt - and that was a complete fiasco.

Compare that with Edward IV's first reign, or the first nine years or so of Henry IV's. As new dynasties go, the Tudors got off quite lightly.

Teejay · Sep 10, 2014

Just a Rube said:
I'd think he'd probably face at least one more major rebellion. Richard had a knack for alienating people and plenty of surviving enemies (most of Henry's supporters at Bosworth were former Yorkists, after all). Furthermore, someone claiming to be either the Princes in the Tower or Warwick would have a legitimate claim, and could thus become a rebel figurehead even if the Lancastrian line is extinct (especially since, as noted, few of Henry's prominent supporters were diehard Lancastrians anyway). And both France and Scotland will have incentives to shelter pretenders.

Remember that while some of the rebels against Henry VII may have been motivated by loyalty to the Yorkist cause, most were motivated by more general concerns (e.g. taxes). That doesn't necessarily mean that Richard will lose (Henry Tudor survived those revolts after all), but it does suggest his reign will hardly be a long period of peace.

I doubt if something like the Simnel rebellion or Warbeck rebellion is going to occur with Richard III on the throne. Because with the former, it was the sort of people who supported Richard III who made up a lot of the supporters of that rebellion.

Also the Titulus Regius would still be in effect, which made the children of Edward IV illegitimate. Henry VII's repeal of which did in OTL opened up a whole can of worms. That would make something like the Warbeck rebellion unlikely to happen with Richard III still on the throne.

Teejay · Sep 10, 2014

Driftless said:
Disclaimer - I have very limited knowledge of this period of English history....

Does R3 surviving and the Tudor dying, significantly change the historic outlook on R3? He goes from being a Shakespearean villain to ???

History is usually written by the winners, ya know.

Often it is the fact, to give an example; Henry VIII

Henry VIII was a monster (especially in the latter years of his life), he was responsible for the deaths of thousands of his subjects in his reign. Among those number were two of his wives, he had executed on flimsy, suspect evidence.

However historians have often portrayed him quite favorably as an eccentric king who had six wives.

Thoresby · Sep 10, 2014

I think Richard III would face the risk of rebellions over the course of his reign just every other late Medieval King. The difference is that Henry VII was a ruler with little legitimacy other than might makes right who nonetheless got on well with his nobility. Richard III had rather more legitimacy (he was a Plantagenet after all) but based on his OTL reign had dreadful relations with his nobility. That suggests to me there will be more rebellions, after all if a man like Buckingham (who probably killed the Princes in the Tower) was willing to turn against Richard III plenty of other people with weaker ties will as well.

King Frodo · Sep 10, 2014

Is there no one reading this thread who is a member of the "Richard III Society" and can rise to the man's defense as someone who could've made a remarkably competent and just king??

Not to mention the fact that, if he did not sire children after his ascension, his nephew (Clarence's son) would've been his heir.

Mikestone8 · Sep 10, 2014

King Frodo said:
Is there no one reading this thread who is a member of the "Richard III Society" and can rise to the man's defense as someone who could've made a remarkably competent and just king??

Not to mention the fact that, if he did not sire children after his ascension, his nephew (Clarence's son) would've been his heir.

I thought he was supposed to have named his other nephew, the Earl of Lincoln.

As for being "competent and Just" that wasn't the main requirement for a Medieval king. The key to success was being able to keep the great nobility onside. Edward IV managed this, though only after a shaky start. Richard didn't.

rottenvenetic · Sep 10, 2014

The main question here is HOW R3 wins the battle of Bosworth to begin with, or at least survives it with kingship in hand.

Harry Percy being less frustrated in his Northern ambitions might be the key here.

Basically the POD is that Richard honours the promises he made to Percy and there's no shenanigans around John de la Pole.

As a result, during the battle Percy's corps("battle") of 4,000 including a lot of cavalry obeys the king's order to join in. (Note: A fellow named Ross claims that Percy failed to join the battle with his unit because of territorial constraints, but I hardly think Richard's staff were so incompetent that they would place the strongest part of their army out of reach - in any case in TTL they're not such dolts).

Then, when Henry rides off toward the Stanleys and Richard decides to intercept him personally with a cavalry charge, it is backed from behind by these 4,000 men and either Stanley decides to stand clear, joins the ensuing slaughter on the king's side (unlikely; he refused even when threatened with the killing of his son), or is defeated as well.

Henry is either killed in battle, captured and executed, or forced to flee to the European mainland, while Richard survives to consolidate his reign.

He is 32 years old at this point and a very desirable widower, even if the Portuguese match with (eventually Saint) Joanna falls through; still, let us say he gets a wife from a mainland royal line and gives birth to a namesake heir (say, in 1490) who accedes to the throne under peaceful conditions as Richard IV sometime around or after his majority (E.G. killing R3 off in 1508 at the age of 56, which is reasonable for the timeframe and natural causes).

Alratan · Sep 10, 2014

Well, as eternally speculated he could marry Elizabeth of York, and if so he's quite likely to have heirs. Whether that will encourage or discourage rebellions is debatable.

Geordie · Sep 10, 2014

rottenvenetic said:
The main question here is HOW R3 wins the battle of Bosworth to begin with, or at least survives it with kingship in hand.

This is the main thing, along with WHO else survives.

If Norfolk is still about, then one of Richard's right hand men is still alive and kicking. With Norfolk dead, Richard may need to look wider for support. If Oxford and Pembroke die with Henry Tudor (as OP states), then he's got rid of two of the biggest potential troublemakers at the same time as the pretender. That simplifies things somewhat.

rottenvenetic said:
Harry Percy being less frustrated in his Northern ambitions might be the key here.

Aye. If Percy advances at the right time, it may save Norfolk's battle, possibly even the man himself. If the two battles together can drive Oxford back, then the suicidal charge of Richard and his 300 may never happen. Of course, there's still the Stanley brothers to consider. If they do nothing, somebody is going home to a very angry wife.

rottenvenetic said:
(Note: A fellow named Ross claims that Percy failed to join the battle with his unit because of territorial constraints, but I hardly think Richard's staff were so incompetent that they would place the strongest part of their army out of reach - in any case in TTL they're not such dolts).

Charles Ross, per chance? His biography of Edward IV is still classed as one of the, if not just the, go to books about the Rose of Rouen, but the wrongly positioned idea does stretch my disbelief. There are several competing theories about Bosworth, but I doubt we'll ever know.

I think the easiest victory for Richard is for Oxford's main force to be clearly defeated by Norfolk and Percy, before Henry Tudor heads towards the Stanleys with his escort. However, this doesn't look good for capturing or killing Tudor, with or without the Stanleys acting. If Northumberland backs Richard's charge instead, they better manage it quickly: Tudor needs to die soon, or else there's a potential problem of Norfolk's men collapsing, leaving Richard and Percy stuck between Oxford and Stanley.

Of course, there's a very easy way to kill Henry off. Richard is thought to have personally slain Henry's standard bearer in the initial charge. A butterfly has him line up his force slightly to the right or left, and he cuts Henry down instead. The difficulty with this scenario is getting Richard out alive. As I said earlier, if Stanley does nothing, he's sleeping on the sofa when he gets back home!

*At this point, I'll shamelessly point people to my signature. It's not the longest of TLs, and doesn't look at anything more than the battle really. It was an exercise in writing, rather than an attempt at serious AH, so please don't comment on the realism or lack of depth. Any other thoughts would be most welcome by PM though

LancyIain · Sep 10, 2014

Geordie said:
This is the main thing, along with WHO else survives.

If Norfolk is still about, then one of Richard's right hand men is still alive and kicking. With Norfolk dead, Richard may need to look wider for support. If Oxford and Pembroke die with Henry Tudor (as OP states), then he's got rid of two of the biggest potential troublemakers at the same time as the pretender. That simplifies things somewhat.

Aye. If Percy advances at the right time, it may save Norfolk's battle, possibly even the man himself. If the two battles together can drive Oxford back, then the suicidal charge of Richard and his 300 may never happen. Of course, there's still the Stanley brothers to consider. If they do nothing, somebody is going home to a very angry wife.

Charles Ross, per chance? His biography of Edward IV is still classed as one of the, if not just the, go to books about the Rose of Rouen, but the wrongly positioned idea does stretch my disbelief. There are several competing theories about Bosworth, but I doubt we'll ever know.

I think the easiest victory for Richard is for Oxford's main force to be clearly defeated by Norfolk and Percy, before Henry Tudor heads towards the Stanleys with his escort. However, this doesn't look good for capturing or killing Tudor, with or without the Stanleys acting. If Northumberland backs Richard's charge instead, they better manage it quickly: Tudor needs to die soon, or else there's a potential problem of Norfolk's men collapsing, leaving Richard and Percy stuck between Oxford and Stanley.

Of course, there's a very easy way to kill Henry off. Richard is thought to have personally slain Henry's standard bearer in the initial charge. A butterfly has him line up his force slightly to the right or left, and he cuts Henry down instead. The difficulty with this scenario is getting Richard out alive. As I said earlier, if Stanley does nothing, he's sleeping on the sofa when he gets back home!

*At this point, I'll shamelessly point people to my signature. It's not the longest of TLs, and doesn't look at anything more than the battle really. It was an exercise in writing, rather than an attempt at serious AH, so please don't comment on the realism or lack of depth. Any other thoughts would be most welcome by PM though

I think Stanley's lucky if he's only sleeping on the sofa. I suspect Margaret Beaufort has much more creative and spectacular ways of getting back at the so-called husband who allowed her son to die. If I were him, I don't think I'd dare go near Margaret, possibly not for the rest of my life. Everything else I agree with.

rottenvenetic · Sep 10, 2014

Right, how could I forget?

Screw not being around her, Marge will definitely poison his arse

Then Richard and his army must simply win a second fight in the same day, but better 2 fights against armies half their size than one against an opponent that outnumbers them slightly.

Let's say that parts of Norfolk's and the king's battles flank Oxford and he's cut to pieces, while the others, including the king, chase after Henry, who is either killed or reunites with Stanley.

Richard holds Stanley back in a bloody engagement while most of his army works the other rebels into the ground and Stanley's brother marches in with his own men.

After a while all the reinforcements arrive at the location of the Richard vs Stanley slugging match; the rebels are outnumbered and defeated. Both Stanleys die in battle; Henry is killed while escaping.

Mikestone8 · Sep 10, 2014

rottenvenetic said:
As a result, during the battle Percy's corps("battle") of 4,000 including a lot of cavalry obeys the king's order to join in. (Note: A fellow named Ross claims that Percy failed to join the battle with his unit because of territorial constraints, but I hardly think Richard's staff were so incompetent that they would place the strongest part of their army out of reach - in any case in TTL they're not such dolts).

No need to make any such assumption. Henry Percy IV had never fought a battle. In 1461 he was too young, and in 1470/1 he remained neutral. He may have frozen up from inexperience, or just decided there was nothing in it for him. After all, Richard was, both by marriage and (on his mother's side) by blood, a Neville - the Percy family's hereditary enemy. Had Percy anything to gain by supporting him? And neutrality had served him well enough last time. Why not again?

Geordie · Sep 10, 2014

LancyIain said:
I think Stanley's lucky if he's only sleeping on the sofa.

To be fair, I didn't say he'd be sleeping on the sofa for very long, did I?

He'll be sleeping at a somewhat lower altitude as soon as his good lady manages to find which sofa he's elected to grab forty winks on...

rottenvenetic · Sep 10, 2014

Mikestone8 said:
No need to make any such assumption. Henry Percy IV had never fought a battle. In 1461 he was too young, and in 1470/1 he remained neutral. He may have frozen up from inexperience, or just decided there was nothing in it for him. After all, Richard was, both by marriage and (on his mother's side) by blood, a Neville - the Percy family's hereditary enemy. Had Percy anything to gain by supporting him? And neutrality had served him well enough last time. Why not again?

Nothing if he knew that Stanley would join with Tudor, making the fight unwinnable for Richard. Otherwise, his title and his life.

Mikestone8 · Sep 10, 2014

rottenvenetic said:
Nothing if he knew that Stanley would join with Tudor, making the fight unwinnable for Richard. Otherwise, his title and his life.

His neutrality in 1471 had cost him neither.

Teejay · Sep 10, 2014

King Frodo said:
Is there no one reading this thread who is a member of the "Richard III Society" and can rise to the man's defense as someone who could've made a remarkably competent and just king??

While I am not a member of the Richard III society, I would consider myself a moderate Ricardian. In that I don't deny he was ruthless and he did usurp the throne from his nephews (using a quite flimsy pretense). However I do believe he was innocent (or anybody else) of murdering his nephews.

However if Richard III had died in his bed, I can see him being viewed as favorably as his brother Edward IV. Edward IV by the way had his predecessor Henry VI murdered and his brother George executed.

Not to mention the fact that, if he did not sire children after his ascension, his nephew (Clarence's son) would've been his heir.

Officially the position of heir to the throne was vacant at the time of Richard III's death. However John De La Pole, Earl of Lincoln was seen to be Richard's heir, if he died and had no heir of his own. I believe Richard decided on making John De La Pole his heir. Because Edward, Earl of Warwick was still a child. Perhaps Richard III as Warwick came of age, make him his heir. It would depend on how mentally capable Warwick would be once he came of age.

However if Richard III had won at Bosworth, he would have lived probably for another twenty years and that would be enough time for him to produce an heir, who would have mature enough to assume the throne once he passed on. Although I expect a fight between Richard's heir and Edward Earl of Warwick for the crown, if Richard died and left an heir.