Latest / Sleepy Facts About History / What Can the Bones and Broken Weapons of Towton Tell Us? - The Historian's Method for Medieval Warfare | Sleepy Facts About History

Transcript

What Can the Bones and Broken Weapons of Towton Tell Us? - The Historian's Method for Medieval Warfare | Sleepy Facts About History · Sleepy Facts About History

0:00
Welcome to Sleepy Facts About History. When we
0:12
read about a famous medieval battle, we often
0:15
expect a vivid narrative complete with exact
0:18
troop numbers, stirring speeches, and dramatic
0:21
weather. But what happens when you open a second
0:25
chronicle and the numbers change, the commander
0:28
is someone else, and the weather is entirely
0:31
different? This episode explores how historians
0:34
navigate the deeply contradictory sources of
0:37
medieval warfare, using the 1461 Battle of Towton
0:40
as a central case study. By examining the gaps
0:44
between narrative chronicles, administrative
0:47
pay accounts, heraldic lists, and battlefield
0:50
archaeology, we can see how medieval combat is
0:54
actually reconstructed. The most elaborate texts
0:57
are often the most heavily biased and literary.
1:00
While the driest financial records and the silent
1:03
evidence of mass graves provide entirely different
1:06
kinds of truth, historians must weigh these imperfect
1:10
traces against one another rather than simply
1:13
choosing the most entertaining story. I wanted
1:17
to understand why the most detailed accounts
1:19
of the past often fail us, and what we are actually
1:23
left with when we demand certainty. Working through
1:26
this episode, I kept returning to one question.
1:30
How do we know anything at all when our sources
1:32
disagree on basic facts? The result is not a
1:36
definitive record of a single afternoon, but
1:39
a clearer, more honest picture of how medieval
1:42
history reaches us, fragments and all. The Battle
1:49
of Torton was fought in 1461, and we know this.
1:54
We know the season, the region, the victor, and
1:59
that thousands died. What we cannot know, is
2:02
the battle itself the chronicles muster rolls
2:06
bones and broken weapons collectively refuse
2:10
to give us the numbers the weather the words
2:13
spoken or the moment the line broke the historian's
2:17
task is not to choose among contradictions but
2:20
to understand why they exist it is also to understand
2:24
what honest reconstruction remains possible once
2:28
the liveliest account is recognized as the most
2:31
constructed Imagine you are reading about a famous
2:35
medieval battle. The Chronicle tells you that
2:39
10 ,000 men clashed on a field outside a town
2:42
whose name you recognize. It describes the weather,
2:46
the speeches, the formations, and the moment
2:50
the charge broke the enemy line. You can almost
2:53
see it. Banners snapping in wind, armor catching
2:57
light, horses wheeling through dust. The account
3:01
is vivid. detailed and written by someone who
3:04
is there. You close the book believing you know
3:08
what happened. Now open a second chronicle of
3:12
the same battle. The troop total is different.
3:17
The town is named differently or placed on the
3:20
opposite bank of the river. The weather is wrong.
3:24
The speech you remember is attributed to someone
3:27
else or absent entirely. The formation that broke
3:31
the enemy is described as a defensive stand.
3:35
The casualties differ by thousands. A third chronicle,
3:40
written decades later, adds a prayer before combat
3:44
that no earlier writer mentions. A fourth, composed
3:49
for a monastery far from the field, repeats the
3:51
earliest account but changes the name of the
3:54
commander and adds a miracle. This is not an
3:58
unusual case. It is the normal condition of medieval
4:02
battle history. The question is not which chronicle
4:06
to trust. The question is how we can know anything
4:10
at all when our sources contradict each other
4:13
on basic facts. It is also how we can know anything
4:18
when the most vivid account carries the heaviest
4:20
bias. And it is how we can know anything when
4:24
the physical traces in the ground resist easy
4:27
connection to the names in the texts. This episode
4:31
follows one battle through the evidence that
4:33
survives. That evidence includes chronicles and
4:37
letters. muster rolls and pay accounts, heraldic
4:41
lists and landscape features, mass graves and
4:44
weapon finds, manuscript images and experimental
4:48
archaeology. The battle itself matters less than
4:52
the method. What you will understand by the end
4:56
is how historians reconstruct medieval combat,
5:00
not by choosing the liveliest story, but by comparing
5:04
imperfect traces. Each trace was made for its
5:09
own purpose. Each is partial. Each requires critical
5:15
weighting. The honest result is not certainty.
5:19
It is a clearer picture of what we can and cannot
5:23
claim to know. Let us begin with the assumption
5:26
most of us bring, that an eyewitness chronicle
5:30
is the best source, and that detail equals reliability.
5:35
Medieval chronicles were indeed written by people
5:38
who saw combat, or by clerics who interviewed
5:41
survivors. But eyewitness status does not remove
5:45
bias. It multiplies it. An eyewitness saw one
5:51
part of a field. He remembered who fled and who
5:56
stood firm through the lens of loyalty and shame.
6:00
He wrote for a patron who paid for praise or
6:03
required justification. He shaped memory to fit
6:07
biblical and classical models of heroic combat.
6:11
The same pattern appears in the Tolton Chronicles.
6:15
The Yorkist writers emphasize Lancastrian cruelty.
6:19
The Lancastrian writers emphasize Yorkist ambition.
6:24
He was there, or close to there, that does not
6:28
make his numbers neutral or his speeches verbatim.
6:32
Later writers compounded the problem not because
6:35
they were careless or fraudulent, but because
6:37
they worked within literary conventions that
6:40
demanded speeches, perfect formations, and moral
6:43
lessons. A medieval historian writing 50 years
6:48
after a battle had access to earlier texts, to
6:52
oral tradition, and to the expectations of his
6:55
genre. He supplied set -piece orations because
6:58
Roman historians had done so. He described troops
7:02
arrayed in ideal geometric formations. because
7:06
that was how order should look. He added divine
7:10
intervention because battles were moral events,
7:12
not merely military ones. The chronicle became
7:16
more coherent, more instructive, and less reliable
7:20
as it grew more elaborate. The liveliest account
7:24
is often the most constructed. Consider the case
7:28
of Talton, fought in 1461 in the Wars of the
7:31
Roses. We have multiple chronicles, some contemporary.
7:37
some later they disagree on the size of the armies
7:40
by tens of thousands they disagree on whether
7:45
a snowstorm drove into the faces of one side
7:48
or the other or whether the wind shifted during
7:51
the battle they disagree on whether the battlefield
7:55
was a gentle slope or a steep ridge a field or
8:00
a more one chronicler gives a speech to the lancastrian
8:04
commander that another attributes to a yorkist
8:07
lord The numbers are especially suspect. One
8:13
chronicle claims the Lancastrian army alone numbered
8:16
60 ,000. The pay accounts and muster evidence
8:20
suggest the entire Yorkist field force was perhaps
8:23
15 ,000 to 20 ,000, with the Lancastrians not
8:27
much larger. The chronicle's number would have
8:30
required feeding and paying a city's worth of
8:33
men through a winter campaign. That is a logistical
8:38
feat. the administrative record does not support.
8:42
Medieval chroniclers routinely inflated or deflated
8:46
troop totals to magnify victory, explain defeat,
8:50
or fit numerical schemes drawn from scripture.
8:54
10 ,000, 40 ,000, 60 ,000. These biggers float
8:59
through texts with little connection to the administrative
9:02
reality of who was actually paid, fed, and armed.
9:07
This is where the historian turns from narrative
9:10
to administrative record. Muster rolls list the
9:14
men assembled for service, sometimes with their
9:17
equipment and wages noted. Pay accounts record
9:20
who was actually compensated and for how long.
9:24
Requisition orders show what was demanded from
9:27
towns and estates. These documents were not written
9:31
to tell a story. They were written to control
9:35
money and men. to prevent fraud and to satisfy
9:38
auditors. They carry their own biases. Commanders
9:44
inflated musters to claim more pay, then pocketed
9:48
the difference. Scribes omitted the debt to keep
9:51
wages flowing to commanders. But they answer
9:55
different questions than Chronicles answer. A
9:59
muster roll cannot tell you whether a charge
10:01
broke at the third trumpet or the fourth. but
10:05
it can tell you that the earl's retinue numbered
10:07
200 archers, not 2 ,000. A pay account cannot
10:12
describe the weather, but it can establish when
10:16
the army was assembled and how long it remained
10:19
in the field. Heraldic lists, compiled for honor
10:23
and legal claim, name participants and their
10:27
banners. They help establish who was present,
10:30
though they may omit the unknightly and exaggerate
10:33
the noble. For Towton, the administrative records
10:37
do not resolve every contradiction, but they
10:41
reshape the problem. The chronicles claim enormous
10:44
armies, perhaps 60 ,000 total. The muster and
10:49
pay evidence suggests smaller forces, perhaps
10:53
half that. That is still large for England, but
10:56
not the apocalyptic numbers of later tradition.
11:00
The heraldic lists confirm the presence of certain
11:03
lords. but are silent on others named in chronicles
11:06
the administrative record does not give us the
11:10
true battle beneath the false chronicles it gives
11:14
us a different kind of trace made for a different
11:16
purpose with its own gaps and distortions the
11:21
historian's task is to hold these traces together
11:25
and see where they converge where they diverge
11:28
and where they are simply silent the written
11:32
record narrative and administrative, exists on
11:35
parchment and paper. The battle happened in a
11:39
landscape that still exists, though changed by
11:42
centuries of agriculture, drainage and building.
11:46
This is where archaeology enters, and where it
11:50
complicates rather than simply confirms. Battlefield
11:54
archaeology has developed enormously in recent
11:57
decades. Metal detector surveys, systematic excavation,
12:03
and osteological analysis of mass graves have
12:06
produced evidence that no chronicle describes.
12:09
At Towton, archaeologists located a mass grave
12:13
in 1996 buried beneath what had become a building
12:17
site. The bones were mostly young adult males,
12:21
the age range of fighting men. The cuts were
12:25
concentrated on the head and face, the wounds
12:28
of men facing their attackers. Some skulls showed
12:32
repeated blows to the same side, Suggesting men
12:35
already down being struck again, the bodies had
12:39
been stripped of armor and clothing before burial.
12:43
No buckles, no coins, no personal items remained.
12:48
They were laid in rows, packed tightly, sometimes
12:52
overlapping, the way men are buried when there
12:55
are too many dead and too little time. This is
12:59
physical evidence of the battle's violence, more
13:02
direct in some ways than any text. but the archaeological
13:06
evidence carries its own difficulties. The mass
13:11
grave at Talton can be dated roughly to the period
13:14
through radiocarbon analysis and associated finds,
13:17
but precise dating to the day of the battle is
13:21
impossible. The bones cannot be matched to names
13:25
in chronicles or heraldic lists. We do not know
13:30
if these were Yorkist or Lancastrian dead, local
13:34
villagers caught in the rowd. or victims of later
13:37
skirmishing. The grave's location, once thought
13:41
to be near the battlefield's edge, has been reinterpreted
13:45
as part of a broader burial landscape whose full
13:48
extent remains unknown. The weapons found nearby
13:53
include arrowheads, sword fragments, and pieces
13:55
of armor. They are typologically medieval, but
13:59
most cannot be dated to 1461 specifically. They
14:04
might belong to the battle, to training. to earlier
14:07
or later violence, or to loss and discard over
14:10
decades. Archaeology can challenge a written
14:14
narrative more decisively than it can confirm
14:17
one. At the Battle of Bosworth, fought in 1485,
14:22
traditional accounts place the action on Ambion
14:25
Hill, where Richard III supposedly drew up his
14:28
army. Landscape survey and limited excavation
14:32
suggested instead that the fighting occurred
14:35
in the marshy ground to the south and west. where
14:38
the hill meets the fen. The Chronicles described
14:42
a hilltop deployment. The terrain and scattered
14:46
finds pointed to a more fluid engagement in wetter
14:49
ground. This does not prove the Chronicles wrong
14:53
in every particular, but it forces a reassessment
14:57
of how Richard's cavalry could have charged,
15:00
whether the hill dominated the field as later
15:03
writers imagined, and how the battle's geography
15:06
shaped its outcome. The archaeology complicates
15:10
the story, rather than resolving it into a single
15:13
corrected version. Experimental archaeology adds
15:17
another kind of evidence, though one easily overstated.
15:21
By reconstructing medieval weapons and armor,
15:25
by testing how long a longbowman could sustain
15:28
fire, and by measuring the penetration of arrows
15:31
against reproduced plate armor, researchers established
15:35
what was physically possible. Tests with reproduced
15:39
longbows and period -accurate arrowheads have
15:42
shown that a bodkin arrow can penetrate mild
15:45
steel plate at close range. But this happens
15:49
only at certain angles and only if the plate
15:52
is not hardened. At longer ranges, the arrow
15:56
leaves a dent, but does not pierce. This means
16:00
the chronicle claim that Towton archers cut down
16:03
armoured knights at 200 paces is physically implausible.
16:08
The archers may have killed horses, wounded men
16:11
in gaps in armor, or forced knights to dismount.
16:15
But they did not punch through plate at extreme
16:18
range. Experimental archaeology cannot establish
16:22
what happened at Towton or Bosworth on a given
16:25
afternoon. A test showing that a bodkin arrow
16:29
could pierce plate at close range does not mean
16:32
it did so in 1461. It means the claim is plausible,
16:37
not that it occurred. A demonstration that a
16:41
fully armored knight could remount after falling
16:44
tells us something about mobility, not about
16:47
whether any particular knight did so. Experimental
16:51
archaeology sets boundaries on reconstruction.
16:55
It prevents the most cinematic excess. Knights
16:59
did not float in weightless armor. Arrows did
17:03
not bounce harmlessly off all plate. Formations
17:07
did not wheel with parade ground precision. But
17:11
it does not fill the gaps with proved fact. Manuscript
17:15
images require similar critical handling. The
17:19
illuminations that accompany chronicles are not
17:22
photographs of equipment or events. They show
17:26
knights in gleaming armor, banners perfectly
17:29
displayed, horses rearing in profile. In a 15th
17:35
century manuscript image of a battle, the artist
17:38
shows knights in full plate armor with visors
17:40
down. Banners perfectly unfurled, and horses
17:44
in profile with all four legs extended in a pose
17:47
no galloping horse ever takes. The armor is ceremonial,
17:52
not field armor. The banners are displayed as
17:55
they would be in a tournament, not carried through
17:58
mud and blood. The artist is not failing to document
18:02
the battle. He is showing what a battle should
18:06
look like, according to the visual language of
18:09
his time. These images are constructed representations
18:12
shaped by pictorial convention, by the artist's
18:16
experience, by the patron's expectations and
18:20
by the physical format of the page. The artist
18:23
may never have seen a battle. He certainly did
18:27
not see this one. He drew armour from earlier
18:31
images, from ceremonial display and from the
18:34
ideal forms his audience expected. The flat perspective.
18:40
The stylized poses and the heraldic accuracy
18:43
of banners combined with physical impossibility
18:46
of action are conventions, not documentary failures.
18:51
An image can tell us what a patron wanted to
18:54
commemorate, what visual vocabulary was available,
18:58
and how a battle should look according to medieval
19:01
aesthetic and moral standards. It cannot tell
19:05
us what a soldier wore into combat. or how a
19:09
formation actually appeared in the dust and noise
19:12
of a field. The historian comparing these traces
19:16
works like a detective, though with less hope
19:19
of a single solved case. The detective analogy
19:23
has a limit. A detective works toward a single
19:27
solved case, the culprit, the motive, the sequence.
19:32
The historian of a medieval battle often cannot
19:35
reach that. The traces are too few, too partial,
19:40
too made for other purposes the historian is
19:44
less like a detective solving a case and more
19:47
like a conservator assembling a mosaic from broken
19:50
tiles some tiles are missing some are from different
19:56
floors some are worn blank the picture that emerges
20:02
is real but it is not complete and it never will
20:05
be the chronicle says the battle happened at
20:09
one ford The landscape and finds suggest another.
20:14
The muster roll lists a lord present. The chronicle
20:19
omits him. The heraldic list names his banner.
20:23
The pay account shows his retinue was paid through
20:27
a different commander. The image shows perfect
20:31
lances. The archaeology shows broken weapons
20:35
and improvised clubs. Each trace must be weighed
20:39
for what it can show and what it cannot. The
20:43
chronicle's speech may be invented, but its mention
20:46
of a marsh may preserve a genuine topographical
20:49
memory. The muster roll's numbers may be inflated,
20:54
but its dating of the campaign may be precise.
20:58
The mass grave's bones may not name the dead,
21:01
but their wounds establish the battle's brutality
21:04
more directly than any text. This method is slow,
21:09
and it produces incomplete results. It does not
21:14
yield the cinematic battle that fills gaps with
21:16
confident reconstruction. It yields something
21:20
more valuable. It yields an honest understanding
21:24
of how medieval warfare reaches us, through records
21:28
made for memory, administration, devotion, or
21:31
praise, and through material traces that resist
21:34
easy connection to named events and people. The
21:38
historian who compares these traces is not failing
21:41
when she leaves a question open. She is succeeding
21:45
when she states clearly what the evidence allows
21:47
and where it falls silent. Towton remains a useful
21:52
case because its evidence is relatively rich,
21:54
yet its basic facts remain disputed. We can say
21:59
with confidence that Towton was fought on March
22:02
29, 1461, in the rolling country south of Tadcaster.
22:07
We can say that it involved thousands of men.
22:12
We can say that the Yorkist forces under Edward
22:15
IV prevailed, and we can say that the dead were
22:19
buried in mass graves. We cannot say with confidence
22:23
how many thousands fought. We cannot say whether
22:27
the snowstorm drove into Lancastrian or Yorkist
22:30
faces. We cannot say whether the rout began at
22:34
the ford or on the ridge. And we cannot say what
22:38
any individual soldier experienced. The chronicles
22:42
give us speeches and formations. The pay accounts
22:46
give us numbers and dates. The bones give us
22:50
wounds and hurried burial. None of them gives
22:55
us the battle as it was lived. The chronicles
22:58
and administrative records disagree on numbers.
23:01
The landscape and archaeology have shifted understanding
23:05
of the battlefield's extent and terrain. The
23:08
mass grave proves violence, but not identity.
23:12
The manuscript images commemorate but do not
23:15
document. No single source resolves the others
23:19
into transparency. The historian must hold contradiction
23:24
and uncertainty as part of the reconstruction,
23:28
not as obstacles to be overcome by choosing the
23:31
liveliest story. The same method applies more
23:35
broadly. For battles with fewer traces, the uncertainty
23:39
is greater. For battles with richer administrative
23:43
archives, the numbers may be clearer while the
23:46
experience remains opaque. For battles where
23:50
archaeology has been impossible due to modern
23:53
development, the landscape evidence is lost.
23:56
The condition of medieval battle history is not
24:00
that some battles are known and others mysterious.
24:04
It is that all are known partially through traces
24:07
made for purposes other than our historical questions
24:11
requiring constant critical comparison. What
24:14
changes when we approach medieval warfare this
24:17
way? We stop looking for the true account beneath
24:21
the false ones. We stop treating the most vivid
24:25
chronicle as the most reliable. We stop assuming
24:29
that archaeology will confirm what the texts
24:31
say or that images show what equipment looked
24:34
like. We begin to see the historian's work as
24:38
comparison and weighting. not a selection of
24:41
a preferred narrative. We recognize that medieval
24:45
people recorded battles for their own reasons.
24:48
They recorded them to praise a patron, to justify
24:52
a claim, to mourn the dead, to account for money,
24:56
and to instruct the living. Our questions were
24:59
not their purposes. This does not mean we cannot
25:03
know anything. It means we know differently.
25:08
We can establish with reasonable confidence that
25:11
Towton was fought in March 1461. We can establish
25:16
that it involved thousands of combatants. We
25:21
can establish that it produced mass death. We
25:24
can establish that the Yorkist forces prevailed.
25:27
And we can establish that the battlefield lay
25:30
in the rolling country south of Tadcaster. We
25:34
can establish with similar confidence that the
25:37
chronicles inflate numbers. We can establish
25:41
that later writers added speeches and formations.
25:44
We can establish that the administrative records
25:47
are incomplete but corrective. And we can establish
25:51
that the archaeology complicates the textual
25:54
geography. Beyond this, we move into probability,
25:58
possibility, and acknowledged ignorance. The
26:02
exact sequence of the fighting, the word spoken,
26:05
The individual decisions and the experience of
26:08
the unknightly majority remain largely inaccessible.
26:12
This is not because historians have failed. It
26:16
is because the traces were not made to preserve
26:19
them. The honest condition of medieval history
26:23
is uncertainty held with precision. We do not
26:27
know everything. We know some things through
26:30
one kind of evidence, other things through another.
26:35
and we know where the evidence cannot reach.
26:38
The method of comparing imperfect traces is not
26:42
a second best substitute for missing documentation.
26:46
It is the essential practice of historical discipline,
26:49
the way we respect both the past's complexity
26:52
and our own limits. The battle you began imagining,
26:56
vivid and complete, was a construction. The banners
27:00
still snap, but now you know they come from a
27:04
heraldic list. compiled for honor, not from a
27:07
photograph of the field. The armor still catches
27:11
light, but now you know it comes from a manuscript
27:14
convention, not from a soldier's memory. The
27:19
battle you end with, fragmentary and contested,
27:22
is closer to what the evidence allows. The battle
27:27
is still there, but it is made of traces, not
27:30
of certainty. That is not a loss. It is an achievement
27:35
of critical understanding, available to anyone
27:39
willing to follow the traces where they lead
27:41
and to stop where they end.