WI: King Richard III did not die at the battle of bosworth field

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.
 
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.
 
On the other hand,England would be full of unemployed highly experienced soldiers.You might want to use those veterans on something.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
I honestly don't really know much about it. I was basing my estimates of damage of the Anarchy and the 30 years war.

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.
 
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.
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.
 
Last edited:
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.

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.
 
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.
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.
 
Here's what I think the approximate rundown of events will be following Bosworth: Richard does some housecleaning of Henry's supporters, which will probably delay him for 2-3 years but cause no significant issues, due to his support from the common people due to his renowned justice. perhaps we will see false Henry Tudors, instead of false King Edwards, but these would pose no real threat. at some point in 1488-90, Richard restarts the hundred years war, colluding with the French vassals threatened by expansion of Royal power, and the Gascons, who always preferred English rule anyway. Depending on how successful years, he could aligned himself with Brittany, Provence, Bourbon (I don't know much about the late 15th-century histories of these principalities, I'm just getting the names off Europa Universalis IV), or a few others, as well as drawing in the Habsburgs to contest their claim on Burgundy. Due to various factors, such as the size of French population, and greater French royal control than in the 14th-early 15th centuries, the English can't really win, i.e. subject France to a personal union/annexation, but they may be able to gain Normandy, Aquitaine, and Anjou/Maine if they're very lucky. a French defeat would also see total Habsburg dominance over the low countries, and an increase in the power of the smaller French realms. this war would necessarily drag on for years, and the long-term result would be very damaging to both England and France. in the event of an English victory, the power structure in Europe would shift towards the Habsburgs, but in any event, Iberia and Scandinavia would likely benefit.
 
Richard III

If he had won at Bosworth: (1) the Lancaster cause is finished; as Henry Tudor was the last Lancastrian heir of any significance (2) there is the problem of Edward IV's daughters. They had been declared illegitimate, but whoever gets to marry one of them will likely ignore this and have a claim to the throne.
 
Top