Sure he did. But someone could always claim that he got away and that the body buried in Tewkesbury Abbey was someone else. If his promoters wanted an alternative King badly enough, they could overlook the unlikelihoods.
True enough aye/
Sure he did. But someone could always claim that he got away and that the body buried in Tewkesbury Abbey was someone else. If his promoters wanted an alternative King badly enough, they could overlook the unlikelihoods.
On the other hand,England would be full of unemployed highly experienced soldiers.You might want to use those veterans on something.I don't think english prospects would be good against France, since England is just emerging out of the war of the roses, it will probably lose Calais. Is the Auld alliance in existence in the 1480s? if so, English defeat becomes near-inevitable, and it could well lose parts of Cumbria and Westmoreland.
On the other hand,England would be full of unemployed highly experienced soldiers.You might want to use those veterans on something.
And he will be very rich as a result.Still a lot of veterans though.Some of the veterans would have fought in battles in other phases of the War of Roses.As for England being harmed by continued war,where did you get that?Scholarly opinion commonly indicated that the War of Roses,unlike the Anarchy,mostly harmed the nobility only,with the commoners and serfs mostly off limit unless they participated as soldiers.Maybe not that highly experienced, Bosworth would be the first battle in 14 years. Also, pretty much everything else in england would be harmed by continued war, and richard would need to spend a few years housecleaning, as many nobles supported Henry.
And he will be very rich as a result.Still a lot of veterans though.Some of the veterans would have fought in battles in other phases of the War of Roses.As for England being harmed by continued war,where did you get that?Scholarly opinion commonly indicated that the War of Roses,unlike the Anarchy,mostly harmed the nobility only,with the commoners and serfs mostly off limit unless they participated as soldiers.
I honestly don't really know much about it. I was basing my estimates of damage of the Anarchy and the 30 years war.
But unlike the thirty years' war and the Anarchy,the civilian population wasn't devastated.The non-noble soldiers are also mostly part of the vagrant population that's largely unwanted except in war or are just retainers.It wasn't as trivial as all that.
Iirc the total killed at Towton is believed to have been over 20,000. Since England's total population was then only around the two million mark, this is a death toll similar to Antietam - the "Bloodiest Day" of the ACW - out of a population only a fifteenth that of 1860s America. Conversely, imagine a civil war in which Antietam alone left over a quarter of a million dead.
Britain's own population in the mid-20C was around fifty million, so that toll would correspond to almost half a million - more that Britain's losses in the whole of WW2.
I don't think english prospects would be good against France, since England is just emerging out of the war of the roses, it will probably lose Calais. Is the Auld alliance in existence in the 1480s? if so, English defeat becomes near-inevitable, and it could well lose parts of Cumbria and Westmoreland.
Actually,an opportunity is opening up.The Mad War is currently in full swing in France.After Richard III takes over the estates of attainted nobles,he might actually have enough money and troops to intervene.You're right but for the wrong reason.
The big change was in France, where big feudatories like Burgundy and Brittany were being taken over by the Crown. Given that France's population was around four time England's, once it got its act together, any renewal of the HYW was bound to end in fiasco.