Welsh Journals

there protected by a cairn. The route of his fateful and fatal charge down the fairly gentle slope of Ambion Hill can be readily traced. A memorial stone marks the spot where he fell at Sandeford. Five hundred years later the tension of that historic struggle was tangibly and palpably present, and that was the measure of the success of the lay-out plan of the Field, and the internal arrangements at the Exhibition. The literature available at the Battlefield Centre gives credit to some of the brave men on both sides, however mean or lofty their motives may have been. The significant tactical moves in the conflict have been described in detail. The hesitant Stanley contingent under Sir William and the wary Lord Thomas, who stood aloof for so long on the flank of both armies, are remembered. The wavering loyalty of the Earl of Northumberland and his sullen men, who remained in Richard's rear and took no part in the action, has not been forgotten. Generous tribute is paid to the 'few French' that Trevelyan mentioned, and there is tactful silence on the fact that 'a French authority describes (them) as the worst rabble one could find,4 and as 'the sweepings of the Normandy gaols who had embarked with the English [!] adventurer'.5 Even the names of those Englishmen who defected from Richard's ranks just before the battle have not been overlooked. Visitors to Ambion Hill might well consider that the Centre has provided a fair and balanced dis- pensation of historical justice; but in this belief they would be oblivious of a remarkable deficiency in the overall picture. The substantial and even crucial contribution from Wales, correctly assessed and so vividly described by Trevelyan, might never have existed. In the various pamphlets Henry Tudor is just the Earl of Richmond, and his Welsh ancestors and background are not considered worthy of discussion. In the case of the small popular leaflets such an oversight, with charity, might be understandable; but in the case of the substantial handbook entitled The Battle of Bosworth,6 on sale at the Centre, a degree of reticence of this magnitude is inexplicable and inexcusable. Such an expression of critical opinion is even more justifiable on bearing in mind that the volume was evidently designed as an academic contribution to stimulate the interest of the more literate visitors, and of equal concern is the realisation that the material necessary to complete a balanced assessment is readily available in the published work of many distinguished historians. The exclusion of an elementary analysis of the prominent part played by Wales and Welshmen, before and at Bosworth, is difficult to understand or justify. It is as if a trained historian prepared a description of Crecy or Agincourt without mentioning the presence, to say nothing of the very powerful contribution, of the Welsh archers. Yet this is precisely what has happened in an account that is claimed to be 'the most modern re-interpretation of all existing evidence of the battle and its preliminaries.'7 This is a remarkably ambitious claim, and to what extent it has been successful will be examined with care, although it must be emphasised that the investigation summarised here is limited to one aspect of the story, namely the association of Wales and Welshmen with Bosworth.