A Return to Towton…
By A reader sends along an alternative analysis of the gravesites at Towton:
Allow me to caution you to be a bit wary of the conclusions from this particular paper. Whereas the team of pathologists was technically skilled and got the bone analysis correct, they were young and had no experience whatsoever with any medieval battle damage before. They were clearly unable to even differentiate between actual weapon damage and the cracking of the bone caused by the grave, the type that would happen shortly after burial with the very heavy fill dirt on top of the structurally compromised skulls. Skulls cut open while alive do not have cracks running from the slices.
The victims we see from this tiny grave from Towton are clearly executed prisoners. No doubt. They were very clearly prevented from defending themselves at all. Odds are also excellent that if they had conducted DNA testing at least some would be found to be of noble bloodline, perhaps even royal, most likely loyal to the Lancastrians. After a battle captured prisoners are ransomed for profit. Well, most are. The unlucky few that would be slain outright on the field would be nearly all felled mercenaries and the poorer combatants. No profit here other than what can be taken from the dead body, and they don’t need to be alive to collect it. Lastly, the enemy royalty are not to be ransomed, as their deaths are the point of the damn war in the first place. A case in point would be just before Towton, at the Battle of Northampton in 1460 when Henry VI (Houe of Lancaster) was captured by Richard, Duke of York (House of York). Richard kept Henry alive as a political pawn, only to die himself in the Battle of Wakefield in late 1460, along with the Earl of Salsbury and Edmund, the Earl of Rutland (Richard’s second son). These 3 either died in battle or were executed after capture. The prisoner Henry was then brought to the 2nd Battle of St. Albans by Richard, Earl of Warwick as a show of Yorkist strength, only to be rescued by the Lancastrians when Richard was defeated. Henry’s escape illustrates well the dangers of allowing the enemy claimant to the throne to live. Throughout the ages these types were very usually horribly mutilated on the battlefield, not captured. However, mercenaries, loyal nobility, or royalty may have become accidentally captured during the battle by the Yorkists, by offering surrender to them when they were fighting very fiercly AND the odds against them seemed overwhelming. In the hopes of continued survival, they would lay down their arms, a powerful human survival drive.
Once taken prisoner it was tradition to turn over the gauntlets and helmet, and their hands would be bound. Execution would be a simple matter at this point, exactly as is described happening to thousands during the Battle of Agincourt, except at Agincourt Henry V was executing prisoners to prevent them being rescued to continue the fight, while at Towton they were executing prisoners loyal to the Lancastrians. The more minor injuries to the skulls are from taunting and prisoner abuse, such as punching with a gauntleted fist. My guess is that the number of blows is in response to the amount of lip that the executioners received in defiance, or the importance or resentment of the victim.
This makes sense, given that one of the central questions in the Economist piece was why the victims appeared not to be wearing their helmets. Thoughts?