Michael J. Bennett (1) (1949–)

Not really about The Battle of Bosworth; about the whole reign of Richard III and the beginning of the reign of Henry VII. Fair enough; there really isn't very much known about the battle, just the general location and a few vague accounts (ironically, the best accounts are from foreign writers; none were present at the battle but they must have had local, contemporary sources). There’s a slight suggestion that Henry VII may have suppressed accounts.


Well written, and what’s known about the pre-battle, battle, and post battle is very well documented and analyzed, with detailed explanations about where the data comes from and what it might mean. The illustrations are kind of sparse and often not terribly relevant to the text, but there’s really not much to illustrate – there are quite a few pictures of random medieval weapons, some effigy bronzes, and some maps that can’t really show much because there isn’t much to show other than vague lines about how the forces might possibly converged to the battlefield and equally vague lines about how they might have moved around tactically.


The actual battle was pretty mysterious – Henry Tudor was seemingly overmatched in troop strength (perhaps by as much as 5:1) and commitment (most of his force was foreign mercenaries). As near as anybody can tell from what’s recorded, more than half of Richard III’s force just decided to wait and see how things were going and found excuses to hang back. Richard decided on a death-or-glory charge against Henry (the Shakespeare contention that Henry had several people scattered around the field dressed as him is apparently false, or didn’t fool Richard a minute). Richard and the small force that charged with him got close enough to kill Henry’s standard bearer, but somebody hit Richard with a poleaxe and that was that. Richard had always been a pretty good military leader so his decision here might seem foolish, but with his force wavering he might have felt that it was best to set an example. The remaining Ricardians drifted off – casualties may have been as few as 15 out of as many as 15000. (Henry did have some of the more prominent Ricardian lords executed later).


Contemporary and near-contemporary sources almost unanimously agree that Henry’s handling of Richard’s corpse after the battle – dragging it to a nearby church, exposing it to view, then abandoning it without burial – was reprehensible. It’s not even know if it ever got buried – author Michael Bennet goes with the general opinion that Richard is buried at Leicester but other sources claim other locations or just thrown in handy river.


A pretty good history – although not really military despite the “battle” in the title.

(Added later: in 2011, archaeologists found a skeleton under a parking lot (car park for people who speak English) in Leicester; various lines of evidence confirmed this was Richard III. In 2015 the remains were formally reburied in Leicester Cathedral).… (mehr)

New histories that are about notorious personalities or well known political events need to have something new to say or be able to interpret the facts in a different light, otherwise they might as well not be published. The life of Richard II was first dramatised by William Shakespeare in 1607 and since then there have been many other studies. Diligent research into primary resources, new discoveries or extensive reading around the subject can provide enough materiel for a new approach, however the author must still decide on his target audience and how best to present his findings.

Ian Mortimer who wrote a book on Richard II's grandfather "The Perfect king, the Life of Edward III" chose to present a new interpretation of existing materiel right at the start of his book. His retelling of the facts were shaped and coloured by this new information and the reader was then nudged along into thinking of the events in Edward's life in a new way. Michael Bennet has chosen a quite different approach. His introduction concentrates on the source material provided by the chroniclers, available to him and he discusses their relevance, their use and their bias. He stresses the importance of checking these against public records to give as full a picture as possible and then proceeds with his narrative having thoroughly absorbed all the information. He saves much of his analysis until the final two chapters: a thoughtful summary of key events is followed by a sustained piece of writing that interprets their relevance to the portrait of the king that Bennet has built through the book. This is followed by a chapter on how Richard's deposition subsequently effected the reign of Henry Bolingbroke (Henry IV). This is masterly stuff.

Richard II came to the throne in 1377 when he was ten years old. He had to fight to gain contriol of his crown from those Lords who had been assigned as his protectors. He had largely achieved this by the time he was 18 and then surrounded himself with his own favourites. The powerful Lord protectors staged a palace coup in 1388 and swept away Richards new favourites and once again had the king in their power. Richard had to manoeuvre and fight again to win back his authority and by 1393 he had regained full control of his kingdom. He soon became one of the most powerful kings in all Europe and saw himself as the leader of the christian communities fight against the infidel. In 1397 he took his revenge against those Lords who had crossed him in 1388: there were banishment's, murders and executions. However when the exiled Henry Bolingbroke returned to England to claim his inheritance the most powerful Lords flocked to his standard resulting in Richard's deposition and death.

Richard II might have said in his defence that throughout his reign there were plots to seize his crown and he was obliged to take all necessary action. He could point out that under his stewardship the monarchy's power had been restored along with his authority to rule. He was a devout christian and he had the ability to lead Christians in Europe against the infidel. He brought peace to England and was keen to seal a lasting peace with France. He patronised both the clergy and the arts and was responsible for some fine building works. His enemies would have said that he surrounded himself with inappropriate court favourites and would not listen to advice from wise and experienced men. He became increasingly arrogant taking the power of the monarchy to unprecedented heights, believing himself to be above the law. He was totally untrustworthy and almost a pathological liar. He taxed his subjects and fined his enemies to excess in order to build up his treasury and personal wealth.

Bennet gives both sides of the argument, but on balance it appears that Richard had to be stopped. His reign had become tyrannical. He was a king out of kilter with the times in which he lived. A man of peace when all the powerful land owning Lords were intent on proving themselves through feats of arms. A move towards a more absolute monarchy when parliament had started to gain some influence. A king without issue, who was not able to name a successor.

Michael Bennet's study is extremely well written and very accessible to the general reader, It would appear to be meticulously researched with good notes and an excellent index. His marshaling of the facts at his disposal is most impressive and allows him to provide some thought provoking analysis… (mehr)

This is a fine examination of the Union sailor of the Civil War in all his recalcitrant glory, as the author tries to get beyond the stereotypes to get a handle on collective motivation. What Bennett finds is a sub-culture that was more mercenary, more determined to stand on traditional rights, and less motivated by political and social imperatives, as compared to the typical Union soldier. The ultimate irony being that seldom was there a group of men more determined to stand on their rights functioning in an environment where there was less leeway to exercise individual rights, up to and including the reality that on a ship there is no escape from action until catastrophe strikes. What's also useful about this book is that the insights of gender studies are exploited in an appropriate fashion. About the only thing that I can mark this study down for is that in having chosen to organize the book on a thematic basis the author occasionally comes off as repetitive.… (mehr)