Bosworth Field and the Wars of the Roses

by A.L. Rowse

The Battle of Bosworth, fought on 22nd August 1485 brought to an end the Wars of the Roses, that had raged between the noble houses of York and Lancaster for nearly 100 years. A.L. Rowse recreates the dynastic conflict, the battles and sudden death and the transition from Medieval to Tudor England.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, War, Military History

Paperback

First published January 1, 1966

About the author

Alfred Leslie Rowse, CH FBA, known professionally as A. L. Rowse and to his friends and family as Leslie, was a prolific Cornish historian. He is perhaps best known for his poetry about Cornwall and his work on Elizabethan England. He was also a Shakespearean scholar and biographer. He developed a widespread reputation for irascibility and intellectual arrogance.

One of Rowse's great enthusiasms was collecting books, and he owned many first editions, many of them bearing his acerbic annotations. For example, his copy of the January 1924 edition of The Adelphi magazine edited by John Middleton Murry bears a pencilled note after Murry's poem In Memory of Katherine Mansfield: 'Sentimental gush on the part of JMM. And a bad poem. A.L.R.'

Upon his death in 1997 he bequeathed his book collection to the University of Exeter, and his personal archive of manuscripts, diaries, and correspondence. In 1998 the University Librarian selected about sixty books from Rowse’s own working library and a complete set of his published books. The Royal Institution of Cornwall selected some of the remaining books, and the rest were sold to dealers.

Reviews

[Éowyn · Rating 1 out of 5]

For starters, the book is entitled Bosworth Field & the Wars of the Roses. Discussion of Bosworth is pretty much restricted to one short chapter and about the first third of the book is taken up with an over-detailed account of the events leading up to the Wars of the Roses; if Rowse is concerned about 'Wars of the Roses' being a misnomer, perhaps he should look to his own title! Yes, the events from the disposition of Richard II in 1399 and the usurpation of his throne by Bolingbroke do have an impact on later events, but a third of the book? Do we really need to know the ins and outs of Sir John Oldcastle's Lollard leanings - I fail to see how this is relevant.

Rowse's chapter on Shakespeare must be at least as long, if not longer, than his chapter on Bosworth. The fact that he obviously sincerely believes that one can gain a credible understanding of history from Shakespeare cycle of plays was almost enough to make me drop the book in astonishment! How can one take him seriously?!

He is also ready to give every credit to the supposed work of More. Even here he falls down by claiming that the bodies of the 'princes in the tower' were discovered in the exact place More said! If you read this work you'll find that the opposite is true - they are in the exact place More said they were NOT! The fact that there isn't a shred of evidence that anyone killed the two princes is evidently a small matter to Rowse. He mentions the great turncoat, Sir William Stanley (at this point step-uncle to Henry Tudor) being executed s a result of the Perkin Warbeck debacle, but fails to mention that Sir William is imputed to have said that if Warbeck really was Richard of York, he would not fight against him. Of course he doesn't mention this - he has to keep reminding us that EVERYONE believed Richard III guilty! Really, a credible historian should not pick and choose their facts - something Alison Weir is also very fond of doing.

Another point is that he is quite happy to accept that Katherine of Valois really did marry Owen Tudor, but cannot countenance the much more credible suggestion that Edward IV was married to Eleanor Butler (nee Talbot), who is not even mentioned. He harps on about the morality and piety of the Lancastrians (despite the Beauforts being conceived in double adultery - further hypocrisy) but when Richard III founds a chantry or offers some concession to a religious house that Rowse concludes it much be down to his uneasy concience.

So, overall, not a book I can recommend in the least. He may try to convince us that his unbending traditionalist view is 'sensible' and 'common sense' but anyone with a little knowledge of the subject will see it as laughably absurd and highly prejudiced.

[Kara · Rating 1 out of 5]

No. This is NOT how you write a book about the Battle of Bosworth! A book about the end of Richard III's reign should NOT contain more ink about Hitler and Joan of Arc than it does on Richard III himself!!!

[Phil Vivian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Had I been basing my awarding of stars on coverage in detail of Bosworth Field and the events immediately preceding it, I would probably have given it a single star. The title is misleading. As it is, though, I enjoyed the coverage of the much longer period. An additionally interesting read in that, given when written and published, it is an example of how published history is constantly moving on, being re-evaluated and accommodating newly-discovered or researched source materials.

[Lois · Rating 2 out of 5]

Mr. Rowse, an Oxford scholar, has written this account of the reigns of the late medieval kings of England. These were cut-throat times to say the least where the shifting Lancastrian and Yorkist alliances made for much deceitfulness, violence and tragedy. In a nutshell, Rowse elucidates: "The Lancastrian house would never have fallen if it had not been for the debility of Henry VI. Even then, it would probably not have been overthrown but for the military ability of the young Edward IV. When the Yorkist house was well in the saddle, after a quarter of a century of successful rule, it would not have lost out to the unknown Henry Tudor if Richard III had not murdered his brother's children and turned the country against him." Following the event sequence was VERY difficult for unscholarly Me because all these Royals had a number of names ('the Duke of/Earl of whatever', 'Humphrey/Edward') which Rowse uses interchangeably. The other mitigating factor is that they ALL seem to be named Henry or Richard or Edward! Perhaps he is assuming that his readers have all been well acquainted with these murderers, tyrants, martyrs, and hangers-on before. I did attain my goal of learning what the Wars of the Roses were about. Power and Succession!

[James · Rating 2 out of 5]

Rowse restates the traditional view of Richard III w/o critical evaluation or primary sources. A great disappointment no matter which side of the debate one is on. The fluid, graceful writing style and the chapter on Shakespeare's history plays are its only redeeming features.

3/9/25 After rereading this, I’m inclined to be a little less harsh in my evaluation of it. Rowse was asked to produce a popular narrative history for a series called ”The Crossroads of History”, which was aimed at a general readership. The primary purpose of the series was to provide clear, lucid, and well written overviews of interesting historical events that represented turning points in history. Rowse has done that; what he has not done is provide any original sources or original critical thought. He wasn’t supposed to, but one would hope that a scholar of Rowse’s reputation and ability would have done oe anyway. Essentially, the book is a glorified term paper.

[Richard Marshall · Rating 3 out of 5]

A workmanlike and readable account of the Wars of the Roses with substantial space give to the birth of the Lancastrian dynasty and the aftermath of Bosworth. Unfortunately the narrative suffers (as with many others) with being preoccupied in demonising of Richard III as a psychotic monster.

[Ollie · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good guide to the Wars of the Roses, though Rowse does think an awful lot of himself....

[Simon Jones · Rating 2 out of 5]

The topic is interesting but I found this book very hard work and the prose awkward. It didn't illuminate the subject in the way a good history book should.

[Daniel Polansky]

A brisk record of internecine Anglo slaughter. As a rule I find medieval history somewhat interminable, but Rowse does a good job of detailing the cast of characters and keeping the action moving.

[Alex Lisle · Rating 5 out of 5]

Such a fascinating period about which I knew so little. Kept referring to the family tree to see how things moved back and forth between the two branches, but completely absorbing. The stakes were high and fortunes rose and fell, with many a lost head in the process. The picture of these days is incomplete but Rowse did well to produce a plausible account of the prominent men and women of the day, and their hopes and fears, victories and defeats, as well as commenting on the faithfulness or otherwise of extant accounts. Is he biased? I couldn't say, after all, who really knows the truth now, so just enjoy the story. It's a good one.