Bosworth 1485: Psychology of a Battle

by Michael Jones

The future of England balanced on the outcome of one fight—but who were these great players whom history remembers as heroes and villains?

In 1485, the Battle of Bosworth marked an epoch in the lives of two great houses: the house of York fell to the ground when Richard III died on the field of battle, and the house of Tudor rose from the massacre to reign for the next hundred years. Michael Jones, co-author of The King's Grave: The Search for Richard III, rewrites this landmark event in English history. He shifts our perspective of its heroes and villains and puts Richard firmly back into the context of his family and his times.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Medieval, Medieval History, War, British Literature, 15th Century

256 pages, Paperback

First published October 1, 2002

About the author

Librarian note:
There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name

Reviews

[Louise · Rating 5 out of 5]

In “The King’s Grave”, Michael Jones provided balance to his co-writer’s unbridled enthusiasm over the recent findings in the car park dig and how they would rehabilitate Richard III and his reputation. In this book, Jones gives his full take on Richard providing plenty of food for thought.

Jones shows through documentation from the past and the findings from the recent dig, that Richard was not the demonic, cowardly, hunchback character created by Shakespeare. He covers the familiar story from death of Richard III’s father, to the roles of the two mothers, to the Woodville marriage, to the “princes in the tower”, to Henry’s time in France to the formation Henry’s men used to protect him. He notes how Shakespeare’s portrayal of Richard at the time deflected attention from the weak Tudor lineage by showing them heroic in saving England from an evil administration. New to me were Jones’ thoughts on Richard’s motivation.

Jones spends considerable time on the dynamics of Richard’s family. Was Edward IV the result of a romance of Richard’s mother, Cecily, and an archer? He sifts through Cecily's location 9 months before the recorded birth, Edward’s baptism, his looks (very unlike the Duke of York), the records of Dominic Mancini and other mentions and Cecily's sense of entitlement.

If Edward is the son of a commoner, his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville is not a romantic fling, or youthful rebellion; It is a total in your face affront to his mother and the whole family making Cecily's humiliation deeper and more complex. For Richard, attaining the crown is righting a wrong. Jones documents Richard’s piety and his ferocity at Bosworth (not cowardice as portrayed by Shakespeare). Jones sees Richard’s belief in the righteousness of his cause as his motivation for taking the lead into a line of pikes and staying through to the end. There is no evidence that he helplessly blamed his horse.

There is a lot on medieval battles and the possible places where this battle actually took place. (On p. 172 you learn how fields were cleared of bodies after the battle, something I’ve wondered about.) He notes that after the battle, Henry paid for crops damaged by the fighting (I wonder how often this was done). Jones notes that those who study medieval battles look to the landscape, but Jones also looks to the motivation of the participants. He finds evidence to show that while Henry Tudor’s mercenary French soldiers were well trained, Richard’s army was the devoted to him.

The book has a lot, for its size, of B & W photos. There is an abbreviated York-Lancaster genealogical chart; a chart for Henry, himself is needed. There are two battlefield maps and a good index.

This book kept me glued and gave me a whole new way to look at Richard III and Henry Tudor.

[Jeanette · Rating 4 out of 5]

This contains an academic level survey of the various updates for reality of facts after Richard III's remains were discovered. Primarily for a study of Richard III himself- but in particular his last campaign and ultimate demise- the ending at Bosworth in 1485. He was slain by two different weapons and the back of his skull was partially detached in a death blow by a halberd.

This analyzes Richard III's motives, his actual physical appearance and the record for his surmised purpose of focus in his last decade. As opposed to the Richard III history detailed by Shakespeare and other histories, which are also heavily covered here in non-fiction survey. Most if not all of those materials were heavily weighted by Tudor influence to description of Richard as both a moral and a physical monster. Incarnate evil and the ultimate enemy.

It's excellent. Enthralling to me is the difference that bloodline and sense of family connection meant to the nobility and to the larger society of that era. Today it's altered severely. Now the slant falls for an individual sense of connection held to family structure and parentage or ancestors, not for the entire bloodline's integrity on the whole. This book in psychological and societal patterns tells us how and why.

The Shakespeare sections were awesome. And the thought that French pike men changed the entire course of progression to the Tudor reign and possibly also the entire Reformation's outcome in England!

Bosworth stands at the borders between medieval, Middle Ages and earliest rebirth to enlightenment, print, science and new methods of production and trade.

Richard III looked similar to his father. His brother Edward did not.

So many quotes are relevant here but this one is succinct:

...when that my mother went with child
Of that insatiate Edward, noble York
My princely father, then had wars in France
And by true computation of the time
Found that the issue was not his begot.

Michael K. Jones notes high probability that all of Richard III's focus was to keep the bloodline reigning pure (of his Father). And not to have bastard lines reign. He declared Clarence's son to be heir to his kingship.

That Tudor history and art made him a monster, in the womb for two years, and hunch-backed to all wicked turns of physical and moral straits possible! This and the battle itself (maps, genealogy charts, chronology of battles prior and placements for all)are included, as are some photos of artifacts and tombs with crest, crown, emblem of proof to authorizations and purposes.

This also documents the reality of Henry Tudor's "afterwards" to the Battle of Bosworth. No chivalry but mutilation. No pardons for the survivors of poor origin who were required by oath to be there, but execution for their liege obedience.

[Alan Tomkins · Rating 4 out of 5]

Impressive. Revisionist speculative history that effectively redeems Richard III, if one finds the author's arguments plausible...and I must say that I do.

[Sud666 · Rating 4 out of 5]

Michael Jones's "Bosworth" is notable for two things. (1) It is a refutation of the image of Richard III that has been popularized by Shakespeare's propagandist works. (2) It makes a valid point for changing the location of the Battle of Bosworth.

To the first point, Jones takes pains to point out the real Richard III. For the most part, I agreed with his characterization, though had certain reservations as to Richards's feelings about Clarence and Edward. I found his arguments for the strength of Richard's claim to the throne and the various regalia and ceremonies he conducted before the battle that have historical resonance.

I also appreciated his interesting take on Cecily's claim about Edward's bastardy, alleged, and how that could have later influenced Richard to do away his with nephews, as they were "tainted" by bastardy. Jones does not absolve Richard, nor would I say he is an apologist, but rather he explains the true situation before the history was rehashed by the Tudors to support their tenuous claim to the throne.

The second point I found very intersting-as Jones uses historical records and archeology to explain that Bosworth was where the remains of the fallen ended up, while the true conflict was at a different location. This was one of the more fascinating parts of the story and it is very interesting to a military historian since I tend to fixate on these things.

Jones's true interesting idea is based on the location. Everything else has been covered before, though I appreciated the links between Richard and his father, the Duke of York, and searching for honor. A fascinating book with some interesting points. If you see a new view of Bosworth, free from the baggage of Shakespeare's rantings (Shakespeare as a historian is more akin to Hollywood as a historian) about Richard III.

[Dex · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some nice ideas in this work. There is some reinterpretation of events and existing sources but they remain that, reinterpretations rather than truths. The 'new' account of the battle from French sources left me feeling rather disappointed as the actual source document cannot be found (it's a second hand reference) and the level of extrapolation based on a couple of very thin lines I just had to consider too much. That said, it gives as reasoned an account of the battle as any. And it all felt rather like a conference paper or essay padded out to make a book.

[Ross · Rating 1 out of 5]

A big mistake. The blurb on Audible made this out to be real history, but the sub-title "Psychology of a Battle" should have raised questions in my mind.
The book is not history but rather the author's musing on Shakespeare's play Richard III and other medieval battles having nothing to do with Richard.
I had to give up after less than an hour of hearing the author's thoughts about Shakespeare's psychology.

[Daniel Kukwa · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's an incredibly informative work; there is quite a bit of information here that was previously unknown to me, and it puts much of the events surrounding the end of the War of the Roses into perspective. However, there's something about the opening 50 pages I found awkward. I can't quite place my finger on it, but it wasn't until I was passed the opening that the book finally found its rhythm. Perhaps the best way to describe it is that it is fascinating in content, but irritating in execution.

[Amy · Rating 1 out of 5]

Wow! I'm trying to figure out how this got published. Talk about lacking in rigor. I spent more time trying to figure out the footnotes, wondering where the research came from. Plus, the ghastly writing - so mushy and weak. "One may, we might, I shall...." One thing is sure: Josephine Tey is spinning in her grave. She showed greater scholarship is writing a whodunnit than Jones put into his own "slim volume" of similar fictional tone. And let's not even touch a) treating Shakespeare as a historian and b) Thomas More as a Ricardian contemporary authority. Ick. At least the book was cheap!

[Rose Ann · Rating 1 out of 5]

Another axe-grinder who thinks Richard is guilty as hell of anything he can think of to accuse him of. Meh.

[Kathy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bosworth 1485: Psychology of a Battle
By Michael Jones
Reviewed January 26, 2023


Bosworth 1485, Psychology of a Battle does not present us with major groundbreaking discoveries, but is a lively and fascinating reinterpretation of the evidence and shows, among other things, that Richard III's defeat was by no means inevitable but was achieved only through extraordinary chance.

One of the first things Jones does is scrutinize the tropes that attached themselves to what happened at Bosworth as medieval minds tried to make sense of a king’s defeat. These include stories of Richard ending up isolated and abandoned, calling for help (Shakespeare emphasizes this with his “A horse” My kingdom for a horse!” scene); his supposing to have had a troubled sleep the night before the battle; the manifestation of signs and portents foretelling doom; and Richard’s failure to celebrate Mass before the battle.

Jones shows that variations of these same themes show up in stories surrounding previous unexpected battlefield outcomes, such as Charles the Bold at Morat nine years earlier, and Robert Artois at the battle of Courtrai in 1302. There was nothing unique about these same themes accreting around the events of Bosworth; these were instead a way of making the incomprehensible understandable.

The most important point Jones makes is to return Richard to the context of the medieval family, showing him not as an outsider and pariah, but as a dynastic figure who occupied a central place within his family mythology as the rightful successor and legitimate king.

It is also important to remember that the medieval sense of family and legacy, especially among the elite, created a kind of sacredness when it came to legitimate succession. While a killing such as is reputed to have been done to Richard’s nephews would undoubtedly provoke feelings of unease and discomfort in many, it would not necessarily place the perpetrator(s) beyond the pale. Unlike today, where society holds each human life sacred, during the Middle Ages and even into the Renaissance, such actions would have been understood – at least by those closest to the family – as a justified and necessary evil.

Before examining what happened at Bosworth, Jones looks at Richard’s family and brings out similarities between father and son, especially when it comes to the end of their lives. Both marched to battle to champion their right to the throne. Each wrested his right from his opponent through tarnishing his rival’s issue with the stigma of bastardy. In their final battles, both men mounted cavalry charges, and both were cut down in hand-to-hand combat. After the battle, the bodies of both men were mutilated. Both were denied a proper burial. And not mentioned in the book (because it was written before this happened), the remains of both were later reburied with great pomp and ceremony.

All these things came into play when the mythology surrounding the death of Richard, Duke of York, was created, changing events from an unfortunate, perhaps even foolish venture, to a tale of betrayal and martyrdom. This was carried out in large part through the efforts of York’s widow, Cecily Neville.

Cecily, the matriarch of the York family, was a woman who loved not only the good things in life (and had a husband who could afford her expensive habits) but also loved power. Although late in her life, she became a pious, almost reclusive widow living a semi-monastic life, there is nothing to suggest that this was so during the early part of her life. Instead, she was a dynamic woman who actively took part in politics and, contrary to Shakespeare’s portrayal of her, was a strong supporter of her youngest son when he claimed the crown. Plus, she had a scandal she'd kept hidden, one that had a major impact on later events.

Also explored is Richard’s personal and public piety, his founding, refurbishing, and otherwise supporting numerous religious institutions, and his well-known interest in going on Crusade, with the suggestion that some of this was a search for redemption for sins committed while on his path to the throne of England.

When Edward IV died in the spring of 1483, these and other family dynamics were the driving force behind Richard, who saw himself as his father’s true heir, claiming the crown for himself.

There’s more to Jones’s theory, but I’ll leave that for you to read since this is a review and not a rewrite. I will say that some of what Jones suggests strikes a chord within me and that I can easily imagine Richard seeing himself as York’s one true heir.

On the whole, I found this book highly entertaining, even though I have to question some of the author’s interpretations of events, especially his reliance on Thomas More and Polydore Vergil. While the works of both (More’s History of King Richard III and Vergil’s History of England) have many good points, and both men were intelligent scholars who may have been able to speak to people who were living back in the 1480s, the simple fact is that both works were written decades after the events depicted. As any attorney or prosecutor will tell you, over time, even eyewitnesses can get their accounts garbled. That these accounts were written during the reigns of Henry VII and Henry VII should also raise red flags to be alert for unintended (or even intentional) bias.

When it comes to Thomas More, Jones believes that Jane Shore, Edward IV’s one-time mistress, was the source for much of his book, but I wonder how much a woman who by that time was in her 80s could remember accurately. Would she really have been on hand when Duchess Cecily viciously castigated Edward, as Jones suggests might have happened? Would Edward IV confide, even to a beloved mistress, the scandalous circumstances surrounding his birth?

The book is intended for a general reading audience, and while there are end notes, maps, family trees, and other appendices, the text is presented in a way that makes the narrative clear and easy to understand, even for a Wars of the Roses newbie. I give this book 4 stars for being extremely readable and entertaining.

[John Bicknell · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a fun read, and Jones does an admirable job making his revisionist case. He's on stronger ground in moving the location of the battle than in trying to rehabilitate Richard. While he certainly succeeds in putting to rest some of Shakespeare's Tudor-inspired exaggerations, he utterly fails where all of Richard's defenders fail -- in the Tower with the princes. You might not ever see a performance of Richard III the same way again, but you also probably still won't feel much sympathy for the central figure.

[Amit Fudim · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very education read and clearly well researched. Felt as if some of the language was clunky and there were sentences throughout that felt disjointed. This could be an affect of British vs American English; nonetheless, the book was informative and interesting, but a few sections could’ve been written better.

[Jim Morgan · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found this book very interesting. The author provides a very readable account of Richard lll and his defeat at Bosworth. He also sites considerable evidence that the portrait of Richard painted by Shakespeare is fiction.

[Pinko Palest · Rating 4 out of 5]

doesn't bring all that much that is new, although there is a very likely explanation of why Bosworth was lost by Richard. Still, a good read, and very firmly in the yorkist camp

[Kara · Rating 3 out of 5]

Jones digs up some interesting pieces here and there, such as how prior battles such as the battle of Toro in Spain would have influenced Richard’s thinking about fighting Henry Tudor, and the importance of his father’s legacy, but Jones has a bad habit of finding what he’s looking for.

Yes, there is an alleged remark that his mother Cecily screamed in the heat of an argument that her son Edward was illegitimate – but how many times have we screamed untruths in anger, like, ‘I wish you were dead?’ and not really meant it?

Jones, however, bases all of Richard’s actions on the belief that Richard knew his brother was illegitimate, hence his sons were illegitimate, hence he had to kill the boys as “cuckoos in the nest” and take his dead brother’s still warm crown. Jones ignores a lot of other factors to push this through, and takes pains to show how Richard was still a “good guy” despite killing two children because of how much he supported the Church.

Also, by halfway through the book I was sick death of hearing about this “pre-battle crown ceremony.” We get it! He put a freaking crown on his head before battle to show he was king! We. Get. It. No need to repeat it every single chapter!

Despite the title, there isn’t as much time spent on the battle as I thought there would be. Jones has some good points about facts v. myths, but overall it was just OK.

[Elizabeth Crowley · Rating 2 out of 5]

The only good thing about this book is that is a short read. If you are hoping for a book about Bosworth, you will be sorely disappointed. The author was all over the place. Jones unsuccessfully attempts to portray Richard III as a victim, yet admits that he probably did kill his nephews. If the author had presented solid facts to back up his very passionate views on Richard, I could give it a better rating.

[Alec Gray · Rating 4 out of 5]

Updated scholarship continues to redefine the view of Richard III, including the recent discovery of his remains. This account of the final battle where he was killed includes an excellent overview of the end of the wars of the roses. An amazing story-Games of Thrones in real history.

[Kges1901 · Rating 2 out of 5]

Jones is an unconvincing revisionist who chiefly relies on unreliable people like Elizabeth Shore.

[Tom Delise · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting theory is proposed, but I am not sure I buy it.

[Annika Hipple · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is an interesting quick read that presents a very different look at Richard III from those I've read before (and I've read many). Michael Jones places Richard in the context of his family and sees his motivations and actions as closely connected to the early loss of his father and the importance of maintaining the family bloodline. Jones firmly believes that Edward IV was illegitimate (the product of an adulterous relationship on the part of his mother, Cecily Neville, Duchess of York). Although I am undecided as to whether I fully buy into this theory, Jones's arguments and evidence are compelling and well presented. His take on how this family scandal influenced Richard's action is well argued. I was not previously aware that it was Cecily herself who first made the claim of Edward's illegitimacy, in an outburst provoked by Edward's ill-considered secret marriage to the commoner Elizabeth Woodwille, a Lancastrian widow with two children and a large family of fortune-seekers.

Also compelling is Jones's reinterpretation of the Battle of Bosworth. He argues convincingly that the actual site of the battle was probably not where traditional accounts have placed it, but rather at a location eight miles away. Jones's arguments make sense, though it would be interesting to see an update based on archaeological discoveries made after the publication of this book that seem to indicate a third (nearby) alternative.

On the subject of updates, since this edition includes a new preface written after the discovery of Richard III's grave in Leicester, I would have liked to see Jones update the relevant sections of the text to reflect the new discoveries about Richard's death, burial, and scoliosis. These sections are only a small part of the book, so it doesn't seem like it would have taken much work to add the new information, especially given that Jones has already co-authored one book on Richard since the discovery (The King's Grave, with Philippa Langley).

I'm giving this 3 stars because the first couple of chapters were a bit dry, and the book had a few too many "may haves" and "probablys" for my taste. I'm also not a bit fan of when authors write things like "As we will see" or "I will argue" - which Jones does a lot. But overall, this was an interesting book that provided a lot of food for thought.

[Charity Dunn · Rating 2 out of 5]

Thin facts spread thinner. Hard to take seriously.

This is a strange book. Jones' central thesis is that Richard III believed Edward IV to have been a bastard, because his mother said so. He uses this to recast Richard's motivations for taking the throne, murdering the princes, and charging recklessly on Tudor at Bosworth. He manages to raise a few minor, intriguing ideas along the way, but overall brings nothing new to the table and relies a very short, very curated, and highly-spun list of facts to back his argument. To string it out to book length, he adds several recurring asides:

- Constant analysis and refutations of Shakespeare's play, as if it were written to be a factual history
- An entirely fabricated belief that Richard had a second coronation performed onsite before the battle
- A strange obsession with Swiss-trained French pikemen who he claims must have been instrumental in Richard's defeat
- An annoying habit of explaining why something is highly unlikely, before asserting "but suppose it were true..."

Halfway-through I found myself asking who Jones was and why he was writing about Bosworth in the first place. Turns out, Jones is a historian of the French middle ages, which explained his apparent lack of knowledge of English history and obsession with the French pikemen. Indeed, his first appendix is a reference to a letter written by a Frenchman who fought at Bosworth, whose 4 reproduced lines apparently should totally change our perception of the battle (provided we accept a "mistranslation" of location that would otherwise make it totally suspect). Jones seems to have gotten overexcited about a minor reference to an event outside his field, and then wrote a book intentionally light on facts to scratch an itch...

Skip this one and read something with more merit.

[Katelyn · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'll never understand this desperate desire to redeem Richard III. It's interesting and I can't stop reading about it, but books like this one made me physically roll my eyes. Truly metal gymnastics here. Trying to justify the claim that Edward IV was illegitimate because he "would have had" to have been conceived in the end of July or early August was just ridiculous. It's not a stretch to think Dutchess Cecily's pregnancy could have gone a week or two past 40. Without modern medical interventions, pregnancies would often go past 40 weeks today, and they had none of that. Even Richard must have known it was flimsy as crap because he shifted gears to his marriage to Woodville being the reason to discredit the princes. He was pulling out all stops to make himself seem worthy of the crown, knowing full well he was stealing it from a child.
Focusing on Shakespeare's sensationalized version of the battle seemed pretty silly too. Of course he exaggerated things! He was an entertainer, not a historian. Double eye roll. Nobody is trying to say Richard wasnt a warrior, but that doesn't make him less of a usurper.
Lastly, the repeated claim that the disfigurement talk was all propaganda was proven false when Richard's skeleton was uncovered. It was probably emphasized by the Tudors, but it was factually present regardless. Apologist ricardians use this debunked and quite small myth to smear all of history with their revisionist vision of rampant falsehoods, but all they do is cement my vision of richard as a grasping, greedy, ambitious little pissant who had no right to steal the crown.
I gave it a generous 3 stars because it provided awesome information about battles. The rest of the content commented on was more of a 2.

[Stephanie Kline · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was less a book about the actual Battle of Bosworth than it was a general (and relatively short) reflection on the figures of Richard III and Henry VII. I enjoyed Michael Jones's comparisons between fact and Shakespeare's fiction.

He takes us through both families on either side of the battle - the Yorks and Tudors, which gives some helpful context to the battle for those who aren't already familiar with the period.

The short bit about the battle itself focused on Henry's arrival in England, Richard's pre-battle routine, and the approximate location of the event. This was very interesting, because there are several schools of thought on this subject.

I learned a few very interesting things about medieval battle - such as the fact that battles were often named more for the location in which the slain were buried, as opposed to where the fighting actually took place. It's always fun for me (someone who reads a LOT of history books) to learn new things when picking up a medieval/Tudor book.

Overall, I enjoyed this. Jones neither seeks to demonized nor sanctify Richard with this book, but instead attempts to come at the subject from more of an objective perspective. While he remains confident that Richard did, in fact, order the murder of his princely nephews in the Tower, he also insists that Richard was the absolute image of a courageous and valiant knight - a true soldier, and a much different viewpoint than Shakespeare presented.

I recommend this book to anyone who'd like a fairly comprehensive, yet brief, look at the time and controversies relating to one of the most decisive battles in English history.

[Paul Spence · Rating 4 out of 5]

The battle of Bosworth marked the end of the reign of Richard III. Today it is one of the most intriguing medieval battles that took place in history with not enough information known.
The traditional view of where the battle took place has been a controversial point along with where the key players of the battle took place. Mr. Jones provides new insight and offers an entirely new perspective on the attitude of Richard III.

Jones overturns Shakespeares account separating the literary Richard III from the historical figure showing us a man who knew and understood medieval chivalry, battle tactics and the society in which he lived.

Jones touches on the illegitimacy of Edward IV, his similarity between his role at Bosworth and his father's role in 1441 in Pontoise and the significance of the crown that he wore into battle.
Jones relocation of the battle to the villages of Atherstone, Atterton and Fenny Drayton commands not only our attention but more research into the villages and locations in proximity to the current and traditional location.

The book is beautifully illustrated with maps showing the new and traditional sites. Jones meticulous research on Bosworth is an important work in the continuing questions and intrigue surrounding the last battle of the last English King to fight in battle.

[Rosie · Rating 5 out of 5]

I bought this book after seeing Philippa Langley and Michael Jones speaking at event for the Thames Valley History Festival a few years ago but I have to admit it's taken me a bit of time to get around to reading it. It's a really interesting read: I finished it in less than 48 hours! Jones is very careful to explain that the book is to some extent speculation, but that the idea is to reappraise Bosworth in the context of the fifteenth century, i.e. before the Tudor rewriting of Richard III's reign and as much as possible using what is known of the culture and belief systems of the period. The result is a compelling description of the events leading up to Bosworth and fascinating look at Richard's character. Jones doesn't seek to make him a hero but to re-situate him in the fifteenth century rather than condemning him anachronistically. It is well written and historically responsible; he explains his thought processes and the evidence which leads him to conclusions. This is definitely worth a read to anyone interested in medieval history and chivalric culture or even just history generally.

[Trenchologist · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this while traveling, so it was taken in chapters and segments with days even between them, but that didn't affect my overall enjoyment or understanding of the thesis.

It really starts you wondering the "what ifs" that cascade from there being no, or no immediate, rise of the House of Tudor. The lack of Henry VIII alone boggles the mind.

It was helpful I have some knowledge of time and persons in this book. Otherwise I see it could get muddled pretty quickly.

For that, it's readable, accessible, and the arguments well made. I like this reexamination of Richard's character and motives. Including it's certainly believable what came after his death was an ongoing PR campaign -- those have always been in evidence by those in and wanting power, and continue to this day. It was also good to have the updated forward with this having been published prior to finding Richard's grave and what that discovery means, including helping to support Jones' narrative.

[Shake n' Vac]

Nice to return to the subject of Richard III, as a visit to Bosworth when I was 10 years old instilled in me a love of history and was the start of my ambition, eventually successful, to achieve a career in heritage.

The book itself is worth a read; I found it enjoyable, however, it has to be taken that this is simply Jones' theories on Richard and the battle and should be treated accordingly. I found Jones' evidence light on more than one occasion, yet his points still interesting. I also found that Jones seems to look for psychological reasons for Richard's actions as opposed to the practical necessity that they were driven by self preservation due to a dynastic civil war, and more so, an inter dynastic civil war at the same time. I think, a personal view again, he reads too much into the crowning ceremony at Bosworth - it identified him and his authority; William I had to raise his helm at Hastings to show he wasn't dead.

Anyway, take a read.

[Arynn · Rating 5 out of 5]

As an expansion of personal study on the life of Richard III, "Bosworth 1485" presents an in-depth study of the battle that truly transformed England, established a new lineage of government, and adjusted the means of medieval warfare. Michael Jones writes in a style that blends historical fact with a chronology that mirrors that of a narrative, moving from each political detail, culminating into the battle itself and Richard's demise. This book pairs well with Paul Murray Kendall's biography of Richard III, as it takes the Plantagenet king's life, ambitions, and rule into account and pairs it with a descriptive history of the Bosworth battlefield. "Bosworth 1485" is a must-read for those interested in studying medieval England and the rise and fall of the kings who shaped British history.

[Sarah Babkov · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very much enjoyed this fresh look at the Battle of Bosworth and the motivations of Richard III, Cecily Neville, and Henry VII! Though I appreciate that the author adds a forward mentioning that Richard’s body had been discovered in 2012, it feels odd to not have this discovery of Richard’s burial site more explicitly explored and discussed in the text. The text is great as is, but wish it had been edited with that update in mind. Perhaps an additional chapter between Ch 6 and Ch 7 on the implications of the discovery of Richard III’s body would have satisfied this concern

[Lauren Lewsley · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bosworth by Michael Jones is a quick dive into the battle of Bosworth and the context surrounding it.
The book is not about the battle itself but more about what led them there and what happened after. I was particularly intrested in the second half of the book as I realise I had always dropped off this period of history after the end of the battle itself.
Bosworth does however suffer from a trait that many history books do in which the author knows so much about the topic and wants to tell us so much that the structure of the book suffers.