View previous topic | View next topic

Enemies and Warfare

Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

Curious Danny
189142.  Sun Jul 08, 2007 12:00 pm Reply with quote

Quite interesting nugget here:
The Middle ages ended when Henry Tudor defeated Richard III at Bosworth Field. This brought an end to the "War of the Roses". Everyone knows why.
So, what banners did Henry & Richard fight under?

Forfeits
Red Rose, White Rose

The correct answer is quite interesting. Henry actually fought under the symbol of a Dragon (He was Welsh) and Richard's symbol was a boar. The whole rose idea was thought up by Henry long after Richard III was cold in the ground.

Anyone else got some quite interesting facts about enemies?

 
mckeonj
189175.  Sun Jul 08, 2007 2:11 pm Reply with quote

Facts about enemies are hard to get, don't give me your opinions.
(Fictional quotation - I just made it up.)

 
Caradoc
189218.  Sun Jul 08, 2007 8:44 pm Reply with quote

But Henry Tudor (or his spin doctors) did produce the Tudor Rose which was an amalgamation of the Yorkist & Lancastrian roses

 
Curious Danny
189230.  Mon Jul 09, 2007 3:16 am Reply with quote

We have a lot to thank Henry's spin doctors for. The idea of Richard III being a hunchback tyrant is Tudor propoganda.
Shakespeare is also guilty. Richard most likely didn't cry "My Kingdom for a horse".
By the way, Will wasn't much better with Scottish history. King Duncan was younger than Macbeth and killed in battle by the solider, not murdered in bed.

 
samivel
189257.  Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:00 am Reply with quote

I don't know that many people would watch Shakespeare's plays in the belief that they are an absolutely accurate representation of history. Surely some artistic license is allowed for. You'll be telling us next that Julius Caesar's last words are more likely to have been 'Aaargh!'

:)

 
Curious Danny
189265.  Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:11 am Reply with quote

samivel wrote:
I don't know that many people would watch Shakespeare's plays in the belief that they are an absolutely accurate representation of history. Surely some artistic license is allowed for. You'll be telling us next that Julius Caesar's last words are more likely to have been 'Aaargh!'

:)


You forget one thing - Ignorance is everywhere. You just don't know who silly people can be

 
samivel
189267.  Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:15 am Reply with quote

So do you advocate rewriting the plays so that they are more historically accurate? If so, whose version of history should we choose?

 
Curious Danny
189271.  Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:20 am Reply with quote

Shakespeare was a genuis. No need to touch his plays!
Pity shakespeare didn't travel more though. If he crossed the ocean blue, what would he write about the inhabitants?

 
mikeyfone
189338.  Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:45 am Reply with quote

Curious Danny wrote:
samivel wrote:
I don't know that many people would watch Shakespeare's plays in the belief that they are an absolutely accurate representation of history. Surely some artistic license is allowed for. You'll be telling us next that Julius Caesar's last words are more likely to have been 'Aaargh!'

:)


You forget one thing - Ignorance is everywhere. You just don't know who silly people can be


I'm still amazed by the amount of people who base their views on historical events and their understanding of the laws of physics on Hollywood films.

I've lost count how many people have asked 'Why don't the police just shoot the gun out of his hand?' Answer - because the bullet could ricochet anywhere, including into his head.

 
Flash
189529.  Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:34 am Reply with quote

Curious Danny wrote:
The whole rose idea was thought up by Henry long after Richard III was cold in the ground.


The wiki article attributes the common use of the term "Wars of the Roses" to a novel published by Sir Walter Scott in 1829, and says that he got the idea from the Shakespearean invention of the episode where the factions pick roses in the garden in Henry VI pt 1. Do we know better, Danny?

 
Jenny
189534.  Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:44 am Reply with quote

Fred the Monk is probably the person to ask about this, but AIUI, the red and white roses were the badges of the houses of Lancaster and York respectively, combined by Henry VII into the Tudor rose. Henry Tudor and Richard III would have fought under their own particular banners.

The Wars of the Roses weren't called such at the time - in much the same way as World War I wasn't called such at the time. The Walter Scott thing is true AFAIK, but that doesn't mean the red and white roses weren't used at the time and generally understood to represent Lancaster and York.

 
Izzardesque
189712.  Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:11 pm Reply with quote

Curious Danny wrote:
We have a lot to thank Henry's spin doctors for. The idea of Richard III being a hunchback tyrant is Tudor propoganda.
Shakespeare is also guilty. Richard most likely didn't cry "My Kingdom for a horse".
By the way, Will wasn't much better with Scottish history. King Duncan was younger than Macbeth and killed in battle by the solider, not murdered in bed.


Richard DID lose a horse in the battle tho so who knows what he might have shouted!

 
Curious Danny
189721.  Tue Jul 10, 2007 3:04 am Reply with quote

Maybe but all the witnesses are dead so no point in following that lead up

By the way, Wikipedia is not the best place to do research. Henry Tudor must have had history books written about his victory. They must have given the war a name!

Does Wikipedia have access to 450 year old History Books?

 
dr.bob
189767.  Tue Jul 10, 2007 4:21 am Reply with quote

Izzardesque wrote:
Richard DID lose a horse in the battle tho so who knows what he might have shouted!


Probably something like:

"Bugger! Where's that horse? I only put it down a minute ago"

 
Flash
189771.  Tue Jul 10, 2007 4:34 am Reply with quote

Curious Danny wrote:
By the way, Wikipedia is not the best place to do research.

I know that's the normal view, but I'd take issue with it to this extent: it's by far the best place to start researching something that I've ever encountered, and research is what I do.

Curious Danny wrote:
Does Wikipedia have access to 450 year old History Books?

Yes, of course - to the same extent that anybody else does.

 

Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group