A. W. Boardman

One wrong assumption can ruin a whole thesis. And I can't help but wonder if this book makes a wrong assumption.

This book is the only attempt I've seen at a biography of Harry "Hotspur" Percy, the son of the first Earl of Northumberland and the father of the second Earl, but a man who himself never became earl because he got himself killed too young. As a young man, he was defeated and captured at the Battle of Otterburn; he was important in winning the Battle of Homildon Hill, then he finally died at the Battle of Shrewsbury in 1403, rebelling against King Henry IV. Shakespeare made him a major figure in Henry IV, Part 1, where he is made to contrast with the future Henry V -- but this portrait is totally false. Hotspur was not a contemporary of Henry V but rather was about the same age asHenry IV.

So a biography of Hotspur has a number of problems to contend with. One is the eternal problem of trying to sweep aside Shakespeare's distortions (I hope we can call them what they are: lies). The other is a paucity of reliable sources. We actually have an account by one of Hotspur's retainers, John Hardyng, but it is a full-throated apology for the Percy family and is unreliable about anything that might make them look bad. Most other sources are either pro- or anti-Henry IV, or are Scottish, and, whichever they are, distort Hotspur. It makes it hard to find the truth.

Author Boardman seems to have resolved this problem by making a specific assumption: That Hotspur was very chivalrous, basically honest and straightforward -- and incredibly impetuous. This seems at first glance a logical assumption -- Percy didn't get the name "Hotspur" for nothing. There isn't much doubt that he was hard-driving in battle. But that's not the same as being rash. It's certainly nothing like his father Northumberland (a constant schemer, but one who was never overt about it) or his uncle the Earl of Worcester (who was known as a diplomat). And I don't think Boardman has presented evidence enough to prove his assumption. Making that assumption let Boardman put together a fairly coherent explanation of Hotspur's conduct -- but I just never felt convinced. I don't know what Hotspur was like, but I can't bring myself to believe that this cardboard cutout was a real person!

There are some minor irritants in addition to this -- e.g. Boardman insists on calling the longbow the "warbow." Of course they were used in war. But everyone else calls them "longbows." It grated a little. But I probably wouldn't have noticed if I hadn't felt so unsure about the big picture.

There is a lot of information gathered here that isn't available elsewhere; it could be a good starting point for a future biographer. And it reads reasonably well. But I couldn't help but want more.… (más)

The battle of Towton in 1461 marked the turning point of the War of the Roses. The young Edward IV decisively defeated the Lancastrians and secured his throne (with a notable intermezzo that ended with the battle of Tewkesbury in 1471) for the House of York during his lifetime. Curiously, in a country that has an almost complete record of public transactions, the battle of Towton suffers from a lack of documentation and personal accounts. Much of its "facts" rely on conjecture and imagination. This is the main weakness of Boardman's study of the battle. While he markets the battle as England's bloodiest ever, the lack of information should caution a historian from making such a claim.

In my view, the size (and the casualties) of the armies of both sides at this encounter battle were much smaller than Boardman and other authors allow for (the paucity of slain leaders is my main indicator for this hunch). I would also venture that the Lancastrian surprise flank attack party was a group of soldiers which had camped in the wood and were surprised by the battle.

The strength of this booklet is the presentation and the photographs of the battlefield itself and its monuments. I hope that among the books that are bound to appear for the 550th anniversary of the battle will be a definitive study of the battle.… (más)