Richard III & the Car Park

[Mayerling]

Hi Sally

I was reviewing your interests Sally. Ancient Egypt and archeology in general intrigues me. Schliemann's find was great but I find that his remarkable success at Hitarlik sort of unfairly dwarfed other great finds of the period - like Layard's work at Nineveh. Specialists remember Austin Layard but few outside the field.

The Pompeii and Herculeneum recovery is amazing, and I hope to visit it one day. But I wish they could do something about the surviving scrolls at that House of Papyri. There is a web site I look at that is about it - there is a very expensive process and it takes time, and I can't say how much time they have.

Love reading about Burton - he certainly showed much more than that explorer's urge in him. And he gave more than "Kama Sutra" - he gave us the unexpurgated Arabian Nights. Also he showed an interest in anthropology that was not universally of interests among his fellow explorers. The only other one in the Nile search I admire as much is Livingston, but it was due to his fighting the slave trade in Africa.

I just bought a 2011 biography called, "How to Survive the Titanic, or, The Sinking of J. Bruce Ismay." He was actually a somewhat shy and uncertain person, who would push a pseudo-bullying cover on people to hide his fears.
His father Thomas Ismay, a more open entrepreneur, did not care for Bruce too much, and their were tensions them that lasted even after Thomas died in 1899. The author of the book is Frances Wilson, and I recommend it if you are interested.

Jeff

[Phil H]

A lovely post Sally.

I think one of the things about the Casbookers who have found this and a few other threads is that we have no "axes" (Viking or other) to grind. It actually achieves much more that way.

In terms of our mutual interests:

Ancient Egypt - it is Akhenaten and the 18th dynasty that fascinate me. So many enigmas, so many unknowns. I started to write a novel about the period when I was 18. I still have the manuscript. Awful!!

Wellington was my hero for years - his pragmatism, common sense and straight-forwardness impressed.

Strange, when I think about it, how many of these interests originated when I was about 11 - a trailer for the 1959 JtR film brought me to "Jack" (via nightmares!); an early Roger Moore film about the peninsula War included Wellington and I got a couple of old biographies from a local second hand shop and started to read. Egypt - one of the first grown-up books I ever bought with my own money was Leonard Cotterill's "The Lost Pharaohs" (I still have it).

When it comes to the rise of Nazi Germany, I'm a structuralist at heart.

In general I agree - but why Hitler? (hitherto an unfocussed - pretty talentless - neredowel). lI am intrigued by men like Rudolf von Sebbotendorf and the occult Thule Society and its role in fostering Drexler's German Workers' party. Did they manipulate Hitler? was there a homosexual clique somewhere in the background (Rohm, Meyer?). The idea that Hitler was "gay" answers many questions for me.

Richard Burton for example, who sought the source of the Nile (and incidentally brought us the Kama Sutra).

As well as the Arabian Nights! How he found time to marry Liz Taylor and act I'll never know!!

I also like Schliemann for looking for archaeology where the Bible said it was – can’t beat a simple approach!

I think the inspiration for Schliemann was Homer rather than the Bible (you probably mis-typed). I think (like McCormick) he is criticised now for things he could have had little control over - he was inventing much of what he did as he did it!! But he clearly was also a fantasist, unscrupulous and dishonest - though that does not devalue for me his achievements.

I continue to be fascinated by Pompeii and Herculaneum, too.

Mary Beard's book is great - I like her style.

Also a big coffee table type book (but excellent and erudite) by Andrew Wallace-Hadrill is worth having (on Herc). I wrote a review of it on amazon should you be interested.

It is odd, don't you think how much nonsense gets written about history, mainly by people who simply copy the ideas of their predecessors. Many examples from Pompeii - but Mary Beard picks up one.

Pottery storage jars set into the counter of shops in Pompeii (and Ostia, Herc etc) - what were they for? Most writers, including good ones, say selling stew and wine to passersby. Beard points out that the jars are porous and not sealed with tar or suchlike, and how could they ever be cleaned since they are immovable and deep? She plumps for dried goods - nuts, "muesli", peas.

There are many other examples.

Phil

[Sally]

Hi Phil

I have a magpie mind and pick up snippets. If only I could have settled on a single period, subject or theme!

I know exactly what you mean, Phil! I admire people who can stay on one single track all their lives – I wish I could!

But then life wouldn't be so interesting...

As it is my interests range from ancient Egypt to military history, personalities (Wellington, TE Lawrence, Wilde) to the rise of nazism, UFOs (well Roswell specifically); the Borley hauntings; the Crusades; Pompeii and Herculaneum; gladiators; French Napoleonic uniforms; Arthur... I could go on

Some of your interests are similar to mine – I was fascinated by Ancient Egypt when I was younger. Even now, I still enjoy the apparently endless stream of documentaries I can find on National Geopgraphic (or Nat Geo as it insists on calling itself – sounds like a character from a cheap novel…) now that I’ve discovered the wonders of Sky.

I quite like Wellington, too; and the rise of Nazism: I studied Germany from Bismarck onwards at college (along with… yawn… the Industrial Revolution, which I loathed at the time but which has proved quite useful since) and generally concur with the views of Ian Kershaw. When it comes to the rise of Nazi Germany, I'm a structuralist at heart.

I’m also interested in early pioneers in archaeology – I have a deep admiration for Richard Burton for example, who sought the source of the Nile (and incidentally brought us the Kama Sutra). He was a fascinating character. I also like Schliemann for looking for archaeology where the Bible said it was – can’t beat a simple approach!

I continue to be fascinated by Pompeii and Herculaneum, too. I (albeit reluctantly after being saturated with them constantly for two years) admire the ‘Vikings’ – hard not to - fascinating culture. I find characters like Rollo and Robert Guiscard very interesting – hugely important, influential and successful men of their day. Not William though - he was just lucky.

I’m ultimately interested in social change – particularly the people and events that were the catalysts for social change –that’s really what brought me to Ripperology. The Autumn of Terror had far-reaching consequences which are fascinating to look at; quite apart from anything else. Similarly, I’m interested in the sinking of the Titanic because of the widespread shock and loss of confidence it induced in a society riding high on its own success. Given what happened only a few years later, it’s not surprising that it was retrospectively perceived as a harbinger of doom. The Black Death – there’s another one – changed society forever; even though it took a while for the elite to realise. Ultimately, the Black Death led to the Modern age. Society changes when perception changes – although of course that’s a gross over-simplification!

The joy of this site and this thread (and a few others) is that I seem to have found a place where I can discuss all manner of exotic ideas with like-minded friends.

That’s a nice thing to say, Phil. It’s obvious that others are enjoying that too – long may it continue!

P.S. I did mean to say something about culture history and ethnogenesis, but I think I've gone on quite long enough for now!

[Phil H]

We'll end up like nodding mandarins if we are not careful. But thank you.

I make no claims to erudtion or scholarship, however. I have a magpie mind and pick up snippets. If only I could have settled on a single period, subject or theme!

As it is my interests range from ancient Egypt to military history, personalities (Wellington, TE Lawrence, Wilde) to the rise of nazism, UFOs (well Roswell specifically); the Borley hauntings; the Crusades; Pompeii and Herculaneum; gladiators; French Napoleonic uniforms; Arthur... I could go on.

Jack of all trades and master of none as my father would have said. Is the word "eclectic"? In truth I'm a diletante and stand in awe of real researchers and experts like Sally.

I strive for understanding, but remain superficial, I'm afraid. Don't be fooled. But I do enjoy communicating my enthusiasms, discussing my hobbies and learning more.

The joy of this site and this thread (and a few others) is that I seem to have found a place where I can discuss all manner of exotic ideas with like-minded friends.

Long may it continue.

Phil

[Mayerling]

And we return the favor, doffing our collective hats towards you Sir!

[Phil H]

And I am trying to get my head around "ethnogenisis", Dave. And that's not all....

As you say, so much knowledge is here. I take my hat off to all of you! [Bows]

Phil

[Cogidubnus]

I'm continually stunned by the depth of knowledge on the Casebook about so many subjects...this last two weeks I've picked up a whole lot of info on the background behind two American Civil War confrontations, even more on Richard lll, and now not only Arthurian legend, but the Anglo Saxon Chronicles too...this is giddy stuff

Thanks all

Dave

[Phil H]

What absolutely fascinating posts to wake up to! Wow! but you are a talented, lot with incredibly wide-ranging and interesting views.

I'll take time to digest all that has been said, but a few points:

Weren't all shoes without left or right until quite a late period? If you look at period portraits (say Wellington) his boots seem to be constructed differently to ours - the sole less pronounced and the uppers more like a sausage.

On a visit to an English Civil War encampment (re-enactors) a long time ago, I met a man who had mastered C17th cobbling and made shoes to sell to his co-reenactors.

Been doing ECW for 23 years...and dabbling in War of 1812 for the Bi-Centennial........But a nerd on ALL military history........

Steve you put me to shame! Re-enacting came along a bit late for me (I recall Peter Young setting up the first ECW group in the 60s but it wasn't easy to get to. I worked with the later ECW Army of Parliament when I directed a dramatised version of the Putney debates (Cromwell v discontented elenents of the New Model Army) in Putney church - where they actually took place in 1647. These were the first minuted discussions on democracy in history. A spooky moment when the then librarian of Worcester College (she wrote the script we were using) came to see a rehearsal. Worcester College holds the secretary's copy of the "Agreement of the People - the document the debates were concerned with. The librarian wholly unexpectedly handed me the original document. First time the document had been in the place it was used in over 200 years - I was touching history. I can still recall the shiver that went down my spine.

During the final performance (I took a small part as well as directing) members of the ECW Society attended in costume. I remember glancing around the church and seeing a plumed hat here, a pikeman's helmet there, a glint of a halberd against a window. It was as though the ghosts of 1647 had returned. Unforgettable.

I also did a medieval combat for a friend somewhere in the Home Counties on a hugely hot day in the 80s.

I really believe that re-enacting is a form of practical history and we will learn from it. Too many academics in the past have made judgements that are disconnected from reality. I believe for instance that its been established - by trial and error - that the 18 foot pikes of the C17th century and earlier, would have to have been carried flat on carts. To march with them over the shoulder for any length of time would have created vibrations down the shaft, given how long they were, that would have snapped the pikes. Anyone else heard that? Have I got it right?

I certainly believe that historical novelists need to try wearing (say) Roman armour or plate (even the costume of the day) before trying to write about a period. At the very least they should speak to experienced re-enactors about what they have learned.

Sally - thanks for the book recommendations. I have Higham, I'll look out the other.

More later,

Phil

[Sally]

Sally, fascinating post - what IS your period, precisely? I'd like to know.

I studied the Middle/Late Saxon period at University and am still primarily interested in that. I am interested in the 'End' of Roman Britain - I know a lot of people working in that arena, so it's been hard not to get dragged into it! Other than that, it's been mostly landscape study - I'm mostly engaged in that these days. Occasionally I even manage a bit of Ripper-related research. Now, as it happens - but more of that in due course, all being well.

On the Saxons - well, I'd put money on most of the "original" Saxons as being European mercenaries brought over and EQUIPPED by the Romans.

We know that in the Empire, the Roman brought over specialist troops, Tungrians, Syrian archers, Batavians who were in some cases stationed on the Wall. Over time they would have become "locals" but may have kept some of their own "foreign" customs, fashion etc.

Later on we know that men such as Fraomer were commanding Germanic troops in Britain.

You might like to read Rome, Britain and The Anglo Saxons, by Nick Higham, or The Origins of the English, by Catherine Hills. You should be able to pick either up on Amazon for a few quid.

In (I think) Newcastle university museum there are a pair of ENORMOUS gold brooches - the sort that have a sort of arch or "bulge" in front. (Technically, they might be what are known as "supporting arm" brooches, I'm not sure). But they are SO huge and a pair, that one almost wonders whether some mercenary captain was "showing off" as they fastened his military red cloak to his shoulders!!

Yep, crossbow brooches - got progressively bigger from the 3rd century onwards. Worn in pairs in the Late Roman army, undoubtedly with the attendant zoomorphic belt buckles. It's very easy to see how those items of material culture evolved into 'Anglo-Saxon' decorative items later on in time.

Titles have often become "names" - Augustus and "Caligula" (a nickname I suppose really) spring to mind. "David" - King of ancient Israel has been suggested as a title rather than a name. Arthur might have been a title at a push - hence we don't recognise him in the record - "bear man" or some such? Even Arth Ri/Ard Ri - high king again!!

It's kind of the Barbarian way at that time, though. The wandering tribes of Europe stop wandering, get land, and crown kings - after the Roman fashkon. It's an alien interpretation - kind of like reading the script but not understanding the play; or thinking it was another play altogether.

I was never taught as an ancient historian - hence I come new to the recent innovations of thought. My degree is in international politics (modern history), but I have a taste for more distant times.

But that's exciting though, because it means that it's all out there waiting for you. Pastures new!

[Mayerling]

Rather prosaic likes with some odd variance:

I have a history honors degree from college - but most of my initial interest was American History. It branched out in college into European 18-20th Century. Then I slowly expanded it. On my own I read the classic Greek and Roman historians (Penguin translations - I can't read Greek or Latin, and barely read Hebrew). Did not read the Old Testament until the 1980s (my father was blind so I was reading it to him over three years - never got into the two follow ups: the New Testament and the Koran). Read out-loud to Dad half of Gibbon's "Decine and Fall...". On my own started reading about Canada (actually quite fascinating - pick at that 1926 poltical brouhaha between Mackenzie King, Meighan, and Governor General Lord Byng for instance) and Mexico (and even Paraguay at one point). Can't say I am a true expert in any one area, but some hold my attention more than others. Also I am fascinated when somebody finds some relic, body, or long lost literary item like that Palimpset of Archimedes twelve years back. Which is why I am so interested in the recovery of Richard's reamains.

Jeff

[andy1867]

No left or right for 17thcent shoes either...But they soon mould to the feet,(as long as you haven't got a Sergeant making you swop them every day to even the wear)...The 3 shots isn't too bad..using all the shortcuts I can do 5 blanks,so 3 live is OK.....question is how long you need to keep it up for as fouling makes it harder.............

Seems they kept it up til all the French were dead for the most part Steve lol

[Mayerling]

I have a huge soft-spot for Paul Murray Kendall's works - especially his biography of RIII. I think I first read him in the 70s (devoured would be a better word) and I have that tattered copy still! Check out also his "The Yorkist Age".

PMK was an American, as I recall. He is much disparaged nowadays by academics - probably rightly. I love him because he is sympathetic towards Richard - but maybe (with my cynical eye) I can see that PMK goes over the top sometimes. This Richard can do no wrong! But writing when he did, perhaps it was necessary to carry the argument too far - almost all the books written before him had been negative. At least PMK is not so totally over the top as Clements Markham.

Things have changed in the 50 or so years since PMK wrote his book. Not least, the discovery of the Richard's skeleton prove that he was "deformed" - something that PMK sought to play down. So the tradition was correct to some degree.

All that said, if I met a total newcomer to the whole Richardian issue, I'd still recommend PMK as one of the first six or so books he or she should read.

Some more recent (sympathetic) biographies I'd also suggest (I think I mentioned at least one long ago in this thread) are:

Annette Carson "The Maligned King" (2008) - in p/back in UK

Josephine Wilkinson "Richard:The Young King to Be" (2009) p/back in UK. I believe part two - covering RIII's accession and reign - is due to be published later this year.

Peter Hancock "Richard III and the Murder in the Tower" (2009) p/b in UK - does what it says on the tin.

Anything by John Ashdown-Hill is worth reading (he was involved with the dig in Leicester. His "Last Days of Richard III" (2010) has been updated post dig (p/b in UK) and is well worth a read.

Be ready for a shed load of new (or revised) RIII books later this year!

For myself (having withdrawn from JtR studies for the present) I am still deep into Gettysburg (reading Harry Pfanz on Day 2). Also The First Crusade - Christopher Tyerman's "God's War" is a doorstop of a book but magnificent. Discussions on here have taken me back to Arthurian stuff - Mike Ashley, Stuart Laycock and Robin Fleming - I can gicve full details if anyone is interested.

Oh, and Beowulf, while this thread majors on RIII and Leicester (long may it continue) it seems - along the way) also to have become a respository for minor historical divergencies, comments etc. I suppose we could always split that out into a general thread if you preferred that.

Phil

Hi Phil,

First book I read regarding the "Richard III" question was in college for an English History course, and it was Josephine Tey's "The Daughter of Time". That was hardly a real history book, though it presented what was the pro-Richard point of view c. 1950. Ironically most of it's points are now somewhat dated and discredited. By the way, she also wrote another mystery, "The Francise Affair" based on the Elizabeth Canning mystery of 1753-54.

I have not tackled the Richard III biography (I do have a copy), but I enjoyed the volumes on Warwick and "The Yorkist Age". Also Kendall edited a one volume on the pro and anti Richard schools (containing the material of Sir Thomas More and of Horace Walpole). I read that book.

I also read "The Mystery of the Princes" by Audrey Williamson (Chicago: Academy Chicago Publishers, 1978) which was good, and "Royal Blood: Richard III and the Mystery of the Princes" by Bertram Fields (New York: HarperCollins - Regan Books, 1998). Fields was ultimately one of the most irritating history books I ever read. For 90% of the book it was an intelligent presentation of the evidence for both schools, with Fields siding with Richard. Then he did an "iffy" history summation of how England would have benefitted (as would have Europe) by the Yorkist line continuing through Edward V's brother and supposed successor. Never did an author overreach himself on wish fulfillment - it just spoiled that book for me.

Jeff

[Steve S]

No left or right for 17thcent shoes either...But they soon mould to the feet,(as long as you haven't got a Sergeant making you swop them every day to even the wear)...The 3 shots isn't too bad..using all the shortcuts I can do 5 blanks,so 3 live is OK.....question is how long you need to keep it up for as fouling makes it harder.............

[andy1867]

I love the Napoleonic era...for me it was The Peninsular War, amazes me what British soldiers could put up with, I remember reading somewhere there were no "Left or Right boots" which must have been a bummer, wearing those Stocks to keep your head up and firing 3 rounds a minute.
Amid the savagery you read of British and French soldiers having a chat at a stream during a lull in the fighting, very strange moralistic code.
Parole, that amuses me immensely, French or British officer, taken simply at his word that he wouldn't try to escape, no barbed wire, simple honour...I mean try that today!!...
Its like that thingy in American baseball where they pass the money along the aisle to each other to buy an hotdog...try that at Hillsborough and some bugger would be halfway back to Barnsley before you realised you were still hungry.
Sure there were lots wrong with it, Ricketts Scurvy and Cholera, but there were a few things that seemed so right

[Steve S]

Been doing ECW for 23 years...and dabbling in War of 1812 for the Bi-Centennial........But a nerd on ALL military history........