Richard III & the Car Park

[Phil H]

Military uniforms - mainly Napoleonic - have been a fascination of mine since teenage years. I used to, and am trying to get back to, painting military uniforms. So I can appreciate your interest very well.

My love of all things Roman army began in August 1957 when I bought my first copy of a comic called "Express Weekly". the cover feature was about a character called "Wulf the Briton" who fought the Romans. (I know the exact date because a couple of years ago they printed the complete series in a fantastic volume which I have.) the artist was Ron Embleton, who went on to paint many Roman army scenes especially in connection with Hadrian's Wall.

I have some of the volumes you mention:
The Age of Arthur (both John Morris and the osprey title on the period) and An Age of Tyrants. I also have the predecessor to Roman Military costume 400-600 (covering 200-400).

On my shelves are quite a few other books on mainly earlier Roman army equipment and armour.

We seem to have a lot in common.

Done any re-enacting? (I have only touched the fringes.)

Phil

[Steve S]

My interests are more in the "nuts and bolts" than precisely who was who/did what...But on my shelves are:
Romano-Byzantine Military Equipment
Hillforts in the Age of Arthur
Late Roman Cavalryman
Late Roman Infantryman
Anglo-Saxon Warrior
The Age of Arthur
Germanic Warrior
Romano-Byzantine Armies
An Age of Tyrants
Anglo-Saxon Military Equipment
Roman Military costume 400-600

So At least I have a good idea what whoever looked like when he was doing whatever..............

[Phil H]

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

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.

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!!

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!!

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.

Thanks for responding - more please.

Phil

[Sally]

Hi Phil,

Gosh, but you know your stuff, Sally. If that was from memory, join Melville Macnaghten at the top of the class!!

Why thank you Phil!

That ‘Dark Ages’ stuff is a bit early for me, fascinating as it is. I was very keen on it as a child/adolescent, however. Who wouldn’t be?

I'm actually focussing on some of the more recent historical/archaeological studies (which by and large tend to be against the existence of Arthur). What I'm trying to do is to see whether current thinking has overturned the old "chronology" of the period re the "adventus" etc.

Mmm – well, not everybody accepts the reality of any ‘Adventus’ at all these days – indeed, it’s been that way for 15 years or more. I remember visiting Cambridge (University) in… well, before I started my undergraduate degree, so probably in the 90’s sometime – and learning that current thinking was that the Adventus Saxonum was more of a fashion change than an actual en masse migration. This was an idea that caught on to some extent – at its most extreme, that there were no migrations from mainland Europe at all – rather, there had been an adoption of ‘Germanic’ material culture by the native elites; who later went on to create their own origin myths. These days, that’s called 'ethnogenisis' and is still a major theoretical framework for the ‘End’ of Roman Britain and the transformation over, at most, two centuries, into country of small, ‘Anglo-Saxon’ polities.

So much for the east of Britain. Something else altogether was going on in the west – that much is beyond dispute. All this refortification of hillforts, Mediterranean writing, epigraphy, Christianity. It’s a sub-Roman world. An Arthur – if not several Arthurs – must have existed at that time. There are ample signs, archaeologically, of a cultured, sophisticated elite; and for that to have existed, there must also have been a level of political and economic control over local resources. There’s a hint of this in Bede’s Ecclesia, in his complaints about the ‘British’ church (who celebrate Easter in the wrong way, naturally). That church had a structured, organised clergy according to him – another indication of the civilised west. It's that sort of world, I think, that we should be placing Arthur within.

I first came across Riothmus (interesting isn't it how many of these people's names mean High King - i.e. Vortigern, or even Magnus Maximus - was that a title too rather than a personal name?) in Geoffrey Ashe's book "The Discovery of King Arthur" years ago. The book is within reach as I type.

The use of a title in place of a personal name wouldn’t be surprising. Obviously if the word was unfamiliar to (in this case) the writer; it may easily have been interpreted as a personal name.

On the annals and chronicles, I think the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle may have removed all mention of defeats in the Arthur period. Badon clearly happened as did Camlann - beyond that who knows. Lots of the formation myths of Wessex etc also fudge key events to serve their own purpose.

Oh, you don’t have to tell me! The number of times I’ve had to tell people (to their invariable shock, disbelief and disappointment) that the ASC isn’t a historical narrative from the beginning of the world onwards; but a politically advantageous cook-up by Alfred and his troublesome priest – and thus cannot be relied upon to supply information with any degree of accuracy concerning events that are alleged, by said king and priest, to have in fact occurred at any time prior to their own.

There are people calling themselves academics who still insist on giving it credence as a ‘source’ of British history before the 9th century. You might as well argue that pigs can fly.

I once saw it argued that the entry, Camlann where Arthur and Medraut fell, makes no mention of them being on opposite sides. Wouldn't it be ironic if Medraut one of the great villains of legend, was actually Arthur's heir or best mate? How to be damned by fate and posterity. I am also fascinated by the enigma of Lancelot - the greatest knight but the one who brings down the Round Table by his treachery. Even as late as Malory, the fiction writers make the war against Lancelot the distraction that allows Mordred to rebel - what if Lancelot rather than Mordred was actually the villain all the time?

This has occurred to me as well, Phil. Mallory (pah!) was only creating a popular tale for the time in which he lived, after all. Heroes, villains, and courtly love were all the rage then. Obviously it is his story that has the universal appeal, since that is the one we hang on to in the popular imagination today. Most fictional presentations of the ‘Arthur’ myth incorporate the bulk of Mallory’s Arthur – I think the only one I can think of in recent years was the abysmally dreadful film King Arthur; saved only by the predictably splendid performance of Stellan Skarsgård as Saxon Super-baddy Cerdic.

If it is of any interest, my current view is that the whole period was much more complex than usually stated. I think the toing and froing viz a viz Rome dates back to before Maximus - Carausius perhaps - and that, when Rome could no longer offer support the tribal leaders threw out the administration. It wasn't a sudden thing, it built over decades. If there was a tribal concensus, there was probably a "council" and a chaiman - perhaps the origin of the idea of a "High King" (Vortigern).

I agree that there was probably no sudden thing. I’m not a fan of the ‘End’. Ends rarely happen in real life – away from the comforting structures of theory, the reality was almost certainly that there was change over decades – something that was happening across Europe. Besides, there is not, and continues to not be, any evidence whatever of particular violence during the 5th century. No mass burning, no mass graves full of massacred men. A recent review of ‘Dark Age’ burial sites found that only a tiny proportion had died due to observable physical trauma. Conversely, this is the time when everybody is being buried dressed up as a warrior – even those who couldn’t conceivably had been warriors.

The past is a foreign country, as they say.

Looking at modern scholarship, I think the Saxon forces built up over many years, then rebelled - maybe they sensed weakness, maybe they were not paid.

I think that’s a difficult (and endlessly debated) question, Phil. Who were the ‘Saxons’ and where did they come from? One of the issues with having a ‘Saxon’ garrison over any length of time is that they would probably have been Roman first and foremost. I think that realistically, one thing flowed into the other. An example here is the zoomorphic art form generally ascribed to Anglo-Saxon workmanship and culture. Well, in fact zoomorphic designs were very popular during the late 4th century and beyond – on military belt buckles. Make of that what you will. There is more than one interpretation at hand.

Anyway, I think I too have gone on for too long, but yes, all interesting stuff – and nice to see your thoughts.

[Phil H]

Gosh, but you know your stuff, Sally. If that was from memory, join Melville Macnaghten at the top of the class!!

I'm actually focussing on some of the more recent historical/archaeological studies (which by and large tend to be against the existence of Arthur). What I'm trying to do is to see whether current thinking has overturned the old "chronology" of the period re the "adventus" etc.

So it's Robin Fleming: "Britain After Rome"
Stuart Laycock "Warlords" and a separate book "Britannia the Failed State".
Guy Halsall (already mentioned) "Worlds of Arthur".

I first came across Riothmus (interesting isn't it how many of these people's names mean High King - i.e. Vortigern, or even Magnus Maximus - was that a title too rather than a personal name?) in Geoffrey Ashe's book "The Discovery of King Arthur" years ago. The book is within reach as I type.

I don't think he was "Arthur" but it shows what Arthur might have been like or done. (That said I wouldn't rule him out and he might be a basis for later stories that Arthur campaigned on the continent.)

On the annals and chronicles, I think the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle may have removed all mention of defeats in the Arthur period. Badon clearly happened as did Camlann - beyond that who knows. Lots of the formation myths of Wessex etc also fudge key events to serve their own purpose.

I once saw it argued that the entry, Camlann where Arthur and Medraut fell, makes no mention of them being on opposite sides. Wouldn't it be ironic if Medraut one of the great villains of legend, was actually Arthur's heir or best mate? How to be damned by fate and posterity. I am also fascinated by the enigma of Lancelot - the greatest knight but the one who brings down the Round Table by his treachery. Even as late as Malory, the fiction writers make the war against Lancelot the distraction that allows Mordred to rebel - what if Lancelot rather than Mordred was actually the villain all the time?

Incidentally, I once worked with a man who's university thesis (MA probably) was on Chretien de Troyes. I seem to remember he had some interesting ideas that I have now forgotten! - it was a while ago.

If it is of any interest, my current view is that the whole period was much more complex than usually stated. I think the toing and froing viz a viz Rome dates back to before Maximus - Carausius perhaps - and that, when Rome could no longer offer support the tribal leaders threw out the administration. It wasn't a sudden thing, it built over decades. If there was a tribal concensus, there was probably a "council" and a chaiman - perhaps the origin of the idea of a "High King" (Vortigern).

So maybe, inviting the Saxons in was a concilliar decision rather than just that of a single "ruler".

Looking at modern scholarship, I think the Saxon forces built up over many years, then rebelled - maybe they sensed weakness, maybe they were not paid.

Through all this, if Vortigern (or a dynasty - Vitalis, Vitalinus etc) represented
the "independence" party, the Romanised Brits had a leader in Aurelius Ambrosius, probably based in the south west.

He fought Vortigern and Arthur may have been one of his generals, perhaps a son (illegitimate?) probably never a "king" in his own right.

I have no belief in the 12 battles of Arthur.

I've gone on too long - but it is good to chat, Sally.

Phil

[Sally]

Arthur Sixpence...

Phil,

What about source material for Arthur? Have you come across Riothamus?

There's a letter from Sidonius Apollinaris (Bishop of .... erm... memory failing me here... Auvergne? But I'd check that if I were you) to Riothamus... late 5th century. And Jordanes in the 6th century - Origin and Deeds of the Goths - (Getica) tells that Riothamus, King of the 'Brittones' was defeated by Euric the Goth at Bituriges (Bourges). The issue is perhaps (as elsehwere) whether this is Bruttium (now Calabria) in Italy, rather than Brtain. Nonetheless, a potential candidate for Arthur if you're interested in him.

What else? Apart from Grumpy Gildas and Nennius, there are 'Chronicles' I guess - best of which is Annales Cambriae. Never trust an annal though, I say. They're disingenuous.

Get any later than that and you start running into silly frilly stuff like Geoffrey of Monmouth, Wace and Layamon and (shudder) Thomas Mallory

I apologise if I'm teaching you how to suck eggs here (so to speak).

[Phil H]

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

[Mayerling]

Off the subject but have always found the Roanoke thing pretty interesting. Will get this book.

er. why IS this on here, anyhoo?

Hi Beowulf,

I mentioned that I was currently reading it earlier on this thread, and Phil responded that he had read it and gave the title and author. No other reason, except that I do mention my reading occasionally. I am now reading, "How to Survive the Titanic: The Sinking of J. Bruce Ismay" by Frances Wilson (New York: Harper - Perennial, 2011). Interesting so far about that great "undrowned" survivor. [I went to Barnes & Noble yesterday and found seven titles on a variety of subjects, including the Ismay book, and the closest in time to Richard III was a biography on the dramatist Ben Jonson - who was not born until eighty years or so after Bosworth Field.]

So what have you been reading recently? Have you read any of Paul Murray Kendall's books on the Yorkist period (especially his biography of Richard III or his biography on Warwick the Kingmaker)?

Jeff

[Beowulf]

"Lost Colony of Roanoke" by Lee Miller

I have it. Very enlightening.

Phil

Off the subject but have always found the Roanoke thing pretty interesting. Will get this book.

er. why IS this on here, anyhoo?

[Phil H]

Though if Prince Charles becomes king it is said that he wants the translation of Fidei Defensor to be Defender of FAITHS to give a more modern tone.

Pre-reformation, the term was supposed to make dear Henry more equivalent to
The Most Christian King of France and
The Most Catholic King of Spain.

Deo Gratia is usually translated as "By the GRACE of God" but I'm not quibbling with your version which is equally accurate.

I LOVE deeply the fact that there is this direct continuity in English history.

Edited to add:

even the Monarchy formally recognises the national church as Catholic (if not Roman Catholic) to this day...

The creed, which the Queen will say daily no doubt, makes the catholicity of the church explicit. But note, even the legislation that is now law and going through Commonwealth Parliaments and those of "The Realms" doing away with primogeniture ans the insistence on no royal marrying a catholic (and remaining royal) will not allow a monarch or future monarch to marry a ROMAN catholic.

Phil

[Cogidubnus]

Just a reminder that the CofE is actually formally known as "Her Majesty's Most Catholic Church of England", and that to this day on UK coinage appear the initials "DG Reg FD" ... Deo Gratia (May God be thanked) Regina (Queen) Fidei Defensor (Defender of the Faith), the latter being a title awarded by the then Pope on Henry Vlll...an indication that even the Monarchy formally recognises the national church as Catholic (if not Roman Catholic) to this day...

All the best

Dave

[Phil H]

I think the church authorities would regard the CoE rites as sufficient - and as catholic. But I assume you are referring to ROMAN catholic prayers etc. As the service will be ecumenical, I assume there will be appropriate Roman Catholic input.

Phil

[Steve S]

I'm assuming that however low-key,he was buried originally with Catholic rites?...No reason for there not to be a Mass for him to coincide with the re-burial.

[Phil H]

Re the Arthurian themes in this thread:

My humble, abject, apologies to Sally and others.

I got it wrong - reckecking mycopy of "Worlds of Arthur" (Guy Halsall) it is NOT Arthur whom he thinks might have been Vortigern, it is the earlier "Dux" magnus Maximus. (I should have checked and I am deeply embarrassed at having misled you).

Halsall's argument runs thus:

Gildas' term Vortigern (highest ruler) could be latinised as MAGNUS or MAXIMUS TYRANNUS - Magnus or Maximus the Tyrant or "greatest tyrant".

Gildas names his other "tyrants" but alludes to Magnus Maximus as the "bloody tyrant" in one section and the "unlucky tyrant" in another.

"Vortigern" then becomes an outgrowth from a misunderstanding of Gildas' pun and a "life" and career are invented for him.

Sorry again for my mistake.

Phil

[Phil H]

The Church of England (CofE) regards itself as a "catholic" church (see its creed) though it does not recognise the supremacy of Rome.

All the former (pre-Reformation) cathedrals are now CofE (Aglican or Episcopalian) and the continuity is regarded as having been maintained.

The Anglican church is NOT a body founded since the reformation and Richard's day, but the SAME church he belonged to (re-branded - to use a modern term by Henry VIII). Henry, a blood relation of Richard III - his mother was Richard's neice) considered himself a good catholic until his own death albeit having broken with the Pope.

Richard would almost certainly have been given catholic rites of his day on his original interment.

Richard will be re-buried as any King would be according to the rites of the state church of today. No insult is intended, and it will be perceived by the authorities that he is being given appropriate, dignified and catholic burial.

The CofE is the established church in England, the Archbishop of Canterbury crowns the sovereign, bishops (not all but by seniority) sit in the House of Lords (the Upper chamber of Parliament) and are appointed by The Queen (Head of the Church) on the advice of the Prime Minister (though I think these days the process is pretty much in the hands of the church).

There is no anomally. The service will be ecumenical (spelling?). The place and manner of burial will do him honour. (I don't know whether there are separate catholic burial grounds in England, and all catholic cathedrals were built recently - since mid-Victorian times.)

Hope this helps,
Phil