Will Whyler commented on this in the
Guardroom pages of Slingshot in March 2012. Even the best documented battles
have gaping holes in our understanding. For example the classic book, the
Battles of St Albans by Burley, Elliott and Watson is a marvellous detailed
account of the first battle of the Wars of the Roses in 1455. Taking just the
first battle of St Albans, they have a wonderfully detailed account of what
happened and where. By some fine battlefield detective work they have
documented where each of the three assaults were launched against the gates/
walls of the town, where the last stand was etc. However, the why is less
certain.
In summary, Salisbury and York attacked at the
wall at two points against Clifford and Somerset/ Northumberland and while this
was happening Warwick broke through at a less well defended part of the wall.
What is the subject of conjecture is was this by chance or was it the plan. Did
the attackers cunningly attack at two points to draw the less numerous
defenders to face them, or was it just improvisation by Warwick. He saw a gap
in the defences and went for it?
Having got across the wall Warwick did not
turn left or right to take the defenders in the flank (which would have been
the most obvious tactical move), but made straight for the defenders reserve
around the king. Seizing the king effectively ended the battle. How did Warwick
know the king was in the marketplace, as the pre-battle negotiations took place
at the nearby abbey?
Even using the pioneering methodology of
SLA Marshall, we do not understand more recent battles. Marshall, while
controversial, attempted to understand battles by interviewing combatants as
soon as possible after WWII, Korean and Vietnam battles. Other pioneering work
by Paddy Griffith has opened a new window on 19th century battles;
his method was analysing similarities in large numbers of personal accounts of
battles.
Despite the best efforts of many wargamers
who have spent years as amateur historians examining battles from the distant
past, to me, the why in battles of the ancient and medieval world is nearly
always conjecture.
My guess would be that Warwick thought where would be the King be,if I were the King I'd be, and acted accordingly.
ReplyDeleteInteresting point. The king was in the market square, a good place to form up as it has space to get organised. It would also have been easy to find for the runners (messengers) from Clifford and Somerset. I also wonder if the top of the church tower next to square could have allowed someone to see the enemy forces camped outside of the town.
Delete