King Richard III died painfully on battlefield

[entropy13]

England's King Richard III might well have lost his kingdom for a horse. The reviled king suffered nearly a dozen injuries on the battlefield, but the fatal blows were probably only sustained after he had to abandon his horse, according to a new paper.

Since the skeleton of the 15th-century king was discovered under a parking lot in central England in 2012, scientists have done numerous studies, including an examination of his twisted spine that led Shakespeare to label him a hunchback. In the latest research, published Wednesday in the journal Lancet, scientists used computer scans and other methods to analyze the king's skeletal wounds.

"Richard was probably in quite a lot of pain at the end," said Sarah Hainsworth, a professor of materials engineering at the University of Leicester and one of the study authors. She said the king was most likely attacked by numerous assailants after dismounting from his horse, which got stuck in a marsh.

Richard's skeleton showed evidence of 11 injuries from weapons including daggers, swords and a long metal pole with an axe and hook that was used to pull knights off their horses. "Medieval battle was bloody and brutal," she said, noting one of the skull injuries showed a sword had pierced his head.

The nine injuries Richard suffered to his head prove the king somehow lost or took off his helmet during the battle at Bosworth Field, against Henry Tudor, on Aug. 22, 1485. He was the last English monarch to die in battle.

Even if Richard's injuries had been treatable, it was highly unlikely his rivals would have shown him mercy, said Steven Gunn, an associate professor of history at Oxford University, who was not part of the research.



Full article here.

 

[RCoon]

It's relatively well known in English historical culture, he was in fact not shot in the eye with an arrow, which is what most history lessons teach.

 

[Tatty_Two]

A couple of things, I thought the guy with the eye (or without it once the arrow popped in to say hello) was King Harold II King of England, it occured at the Battle of Hastings? Secondly...... Since when has English history been "Science & Technology"! as I am English and biased though I will leave it

 

[RCoon]

A couple of things, I thought the guy with the eye (or without it once the arrow popped in to say hello) was King Harold II King of England, it occured at the Battle of Hastings? Secondly...... Since when has English history been "Science & Technology"! as I am English and biased though I will leave it

I'm ill, and tired, and I have no better excuse for stupidity.

 

[ne6togadno]

A couple of things, I thought the guy with the eye (or without it once the arrow popped in to say hello) was King Harold II King of England, it occured at the Battle of Hastings? Secondly...... Since when has English history been "Science & Technology"! as I am English and biased though I will leave it

Since the skeleton of the 15th-century king was discovered under a parking lot in central England in 2012, scientists have done numerous studies, including an examination of his twisted spine that led Shakespeare to label him a hunchback. In the latest research, published Wednesday in the journal Lancet, scientists used computer scans and other methods to analyze the king's skeletal wounds.
Full article here.

 

[Tatty_Two]

Mentioning a word like scientist does not make it scientific, I could do a piece on potato growing and mention at the end that some Scientists say potatoes are healthy, that does not change the fact that it would be a horticultural article as opposed to a scientific one

 

[ne6togadno]

Mentioning a word like scientist does not make it scientific, I could do a piece on potato growing and mention at the end that some Scientists say potatoes are healthy, that does not change the fact that it would be a horticultural article as opposed to a scientific one

if article is focused more to final results and conclusions rather then scientific methods used in research doesnt make it non-scientific. also dont forget that history is science as well. ya it isnt pc/tech related but still it is science

 

[entropy13]

Mentioning a word like scientist does not make it scientific, I could do a piece on potato growing and mention at the end that some Scientists say potatoes are healthy, that does not change the fact that it would be a horticultural article as opposed to a scientific one

Agriculture is a science...and the research was first published in the Lancet, a medical journal. Unless of course medicine is no longer a science...Or even more specifically, forensics...

There's nothing really "strictly historical" here anyway. It doesn't matter if he was killed in a marsh, or some grassland, in 1485, or 1423, or if it isn't even Richard III to begin with. The main idea of the article is that they were able to determine that he had swords struck onto his head, and pierced onto his skull, plus other weapons (probably blunt weapons), and that he most probably didn't have his helmet at that time. And that piece is probably the only one you could say is "historical" rather than "scientific" i.e. whether or not he had his helmet on or not. But regardless, they were able to confirm Shakespeare's supposition through the scientific method.

 

[Tatty_Two]

Agriculture is a science...and the research was first published in the Lancet, a medical journal. Unless of course medicine is no longer a science...Or even more specifically, forensics...

There's nothing really "strictly historical" here anyway. It doesn't matter if he was killed in a marsh, or some grassland, in 1485, or 1423, or if it isn't even Richard III to begin with. The main idea of the article is that they were able to determine that he had swords struck onto his head, and pierced onto his skill, plus other weapons (probably blunt weapons), and that he most probably didn't have his helmet at that time. And that piece is probably the only one you could say is "historical" rather than "scientific" i.e. whether or not he had his helmet on or not. But regardless, they were able to confirm Shakespeare's supposition through the scientific method.

Yep thats the way most of them died back then, especally if they started wars....... all your points are valid but lets face it based on your theories you could tie pretty much anything into Science, whilst it may not be to anyone else..... in my little closeted world this remans history! As far as I can remember (and it was a long time ago), Science and history were 2 different subjects at school

 

[micropage7]

interesting and let it be part of our history

 

[RCoon]

Yep thats the way most of them died back then

All wars were incredibly brutal from the beginning of time past through the ages when melee was still an option. Unlike all those hollywood movies where brad pitt cuts through enemies like butter, the actual properties of bladed weapons were not quite so silky and clean cut(no pun intended). There were no single slice beheadings, or the swift cutting of limbs. The only weapon capable was a double edged and incredibly heavy sword wielded by the crusaders, and only if the blade was kept in sharp conditions with a whetstone (Though most knights used their chainmail to buff out the chinks in their blades during duels). Swords were very rarely better than maces or bludgeons, they were just as barbaric, and would take as many as nine blow to cut through any type of limb. Medieval warfare was painful, and after the death of Richard III, the War of the Roses showed that nobody particularly wanted to kill the barons in battle. They were always captured and either imprisoned, or beheaded (which also was rarely a single slice affair).

The only weapons capable in the early ages were the freshly sharpened double edged and extremely heavy swords, and the 1000 times folded swords of asian manufacture. Everything else was a "club this round the other man's head, or I die first" sort of thing. It's also worth mentioning platemail was nigh impossible to penetrate back in the day. Nothing did anything besides very well made crossbow bolts, and very blunt hammers, which mostly caused death to plate wearers by the sheer force put through the armor, a la, broken necks, shattered bones, and broken ribs. You'd be amazed how protective plate armor was, even broadshields were impenetrable unless somebody wielded one of those enormous japanese log things with studs in it (I do not recall the name, but it was one of the few things a human could wield that would snap a wooden broadshield in half).

Bottom line is, always use protection.

As you can imagine I was a fan of history.

 

[ne6togadno]

Yep thats the way most of them died back then, especally if they started wars....... all your points are valid but lets face it based on your theories you could tie pretty much anything into Science, whilst it may not be to anyone else..... in my little closeted world this remans history! As far as I can remember (and it was a long time ago), Science and history were 2 different subjects at school

duno how it is in english but in my language "history science" (verbatim translation) is complitely valid phrase

 

[RCoon]

And just another quick one, that news story should read:

EVERYONE in that battle died painfully.

 

[ne6togadno]

And just another quick one, that news story should read:

EVERYONE in that battle died painfully.

much depend from what was injury that dead blow caused. those that hadnt injuries till dead blow and died from blow that caused instand dead were lucky.
thoes that werent so lucky and was injured deadly but didnt died instantly had miserable and painfull end.

 

[rtwjunkie]

I took this as an article based on forensics, not a history lesson, so I can definately see this in the Science and Technology section.

 

[entropy13]

This isn't history Tatty One. A primary source means either an eyewitness account or the historian sees it himself (the former is still missing, the latter is impossible). A secondary source would mean reading someone else who recorded an eyewitness account (which is also still missing), or the historian goes to the realm of science (archaeology, forensics) to determine what happened, and since he is an historian, and not a forensics expert nor an archaeologist, it's no longer under his "history" discipline. And sources are the important things in history; three out of four the historian can be directly involved, in the fourth, unless he's a multidisciplinary expert, is outside of his knowledge base.


And it's easy to infer that he would probably be the only one who got the treatment in battle. His enemies would rather hit him 10 times than hit 10 of the king's soldiers once each.

Now that's "historical conjecture". If I somehow was able to provide verifiable evidence through in-depth analysis of the remains of the other soldiers on the king's army nearby, then that becomes "scientific".

 

[Tatty_Two]

OK, I covered it in history around 1974 and was taught that he was "bludgeoned" to death in battle and had received multiple wounds, don't know where the historians and/or scientists got it from but it was taught in history, maybe eyewitness accounts at the time I dunno and as RCoon mentioned earlier, it was rare back in those days to die from a single blow or wound so of course death was going to be painful. For the sake of argument we will call it Science but as I said earlier, you could almost put a scientific tag on pretty much everything if you tried hard enough.

 

[ne6togadno]

you could almost put a scientific tag on pretty much everything if you tried hard enough.

i want to see what science you'd tag to this one

 

[Frick]

Ring Kichard was his name.

 

[TheMailMan78]

This is nonsense. Everyone knows history started in 1776. Everything before that was a mistake.


MERICA!

 

[Tatty_Two]

i want to see what science you'd tag to this one

Human Biology of course

 

[64K]

Unfortunately scientific inquiry today isn't up to par with the quality of scientific methods of the Medieval Ages

 

[rtwjunkie]

@64K: If there was a "ten tines thanks button" thats what i would press! LOL, a very funny trip down memory lane, there.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Unfortunately scientific inquiry today isn't up to par with the quality of scientific methods of the Medieval Ages

That's pretty much how I see most science even today.