Myres, J. N. L., 'The Campaign of Radcot Bridge in December 1387', The English Historical Review 42 (1927), 20-33

-

Quick Summary

Robert de Vere’s royalist army was defeated at Radcot Bridge on 20 December 1387 with little fighting ever taking place

  • A royalist army of 4,000-5,000 men was trapped at Radcot Bridge on the upper Thames
  • de Vere was attempting to join forces with the king in London
  • de Vere abandoned his army having realised his position was ‘hopeless’
Key Conclusion

Myres re-examines the evidence surrounding the battle of Radcot Bridge on 20 December 1387, which was fought between the royalist forces of Robert de Vere, earl of Oxford, and the baronial forces of the Lords’ Appellant who had rebelled against King Richard II. Myres brings together three separate accounts of what happened to construct a coherent narrative of events. Ultimately, de Vere was trapped by the forces of the Lords’ Appellant at Radcot Bridge on the upper Thames where he abandoned his army and fled with little fighting ever taking place.

Content Overview

Robert de Vere was attempting to join forces with the king in London with an army of 4,000-5,000 men. Traveling from Chester to London, de Vere received information that the Lords’ Appellant were blocking his path at Northampton. He left the road and followed the Fosse Way to Stow-on-the-Wold where he found himself encircled by rebel forces. On 20 December, de Vere reached Radcot Bridge which was already occupied by the forces of the earl of Derby (the future Henry IV). When rebel forces appeared behind him de Vere realised ‘his position was hopeless’ (p. 33), abandoned his army, fled downstream and after nightfall crossed the Thames on his horse.

Further Findings

Myres provides a summary of the three surviving contemporary account of the Radcot bridge campaign (p. 32): (1) the account contained in ‘continuation of Higden’s Polychronicon’ was written at Westminster and is based on the account of a member of the appellants’ army – this account is useful for the manoeuvres leading up to the battle but confused about the events on 20 December; (2) the narrative provided by the ‘continuator of Knighton’ was also based on the account of a member of the appellants’ army and is useful for its account of 20 December; (3) the version of events contained in numerous other sources is really only really significant for its mention of a preliminary skirmish.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Phillpotts, Christopher, 'The fate of the truce of Paris, 1396-1415', Journal of Medieval History 24 (1998), 61-80

-
Quick Summary The Truce of Paris (1396) formed a framework to reduce the level of warfare between England and France up until 1415 The focus of the truce changed depending on the particular ambitions of subsequent English kings Richard II maintained the truce after 1397 to secure dowry payments from France Henry IV and Charles VI put their differences aside to establish a peace between kingdoms Key Conclusion Phillpotts explores the longest truce of the Hundred Years War, agreed at Paris between Richard II of England and Charles VI of France in 1396, and its subsequent extension, redefinition and clarification until 1415. Truces reduced the level of warfare, rather than ended it, and needed to be periodically renegotiated to be effective. Phillpotts concludes that the truce of 1396 ‘formed the central framework of a series of general and particular truces’. The focus of the truce changed between 1396 and 1314, from Richard II’s initial concern to p...
Read more

Theilmann, John M., 'Stubbs, Shakespeare, and Recent Historians of Richard II', Albion 8 (1976), 107-124

-
Quick Summary The idea that Richard II was a tyrant persists even though a satisfactory history of his reign is yet to be written According to the Stubbsean Orthodoxy, Richard II was a coldly calculating king A revision to the Stubbsean Orthodoxy cast Richard II as insane Existing research distorts history by its fixation on constitutional issues Key Conclusion Theilmann explores the historiography of Richard II’s reign from the 1890s to the 1970s and, in particular, the verdict reached by historians about his approach to kingship. This historiographical review leads Theilmann to conclude that the traditional interpretation of Richard’s reign – the ‘Stubbsean Orthodoxy’ – has been slowly challenged but its influence remains strong. According to this Orthodoxy, Richard II was a ‘coldly calculating king’ (p. 110). He was a tyrant determined to diminish parliament and destroy constitutional government. Theilmann notes that while more recent research h...
Read more

Wilkinson, B., 'The Peasants’ Revolt of 1381', Speculum 15 (1940), 12-35

-
Quick Summary The Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 was primarily a ‘movement of reaction’ against John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster Historians have paid too much attention to one particular source Common hatred of John of Gaunt brought the Londoners and the rebels together After the destruction of Gaunt’s palace in London the Peasants’ Revolt began to wane Key Conclusion Wilkinson provides a revisionist interpretation of the events in London during the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381. Wilkinson contends that historians have paid too much attention to one particular source – the return of the jurors in the Sheriffs’ Inquisitions of 1382. The evidence presented to the Sheriffs’ Inquisitions was ‘thoroughly and, it seems likely, intentionally misleading’ (p. 12), since the London jurors ‘did their best to conceal the powerful support which Londoners themselves gave to the revolt’ (p. 29). Wilkinson concludes that the revolt was primarily a ‘movement of reaction against J...
Read more