The most important battle you've probably never heard of

Exactly 800 years ago on Sunday, in a field next to what is now the airport of Lille, a battle was fought which determined the history of England.

Today few people in the UK have heard of Bouvines. It has none of the ring of an Agincourt or a Crecy. Probably that it is because England lost it. But the battle of 27 July, 1214 was just as significant as England's later victories over the French. Maybe more so.

"Bouvines is the most important battle in English history that no-one has ever heard of," says John France, professor emeritus in medieval history at Swansea University.

"Without Bouvines there is no Magna Carta, and all the British and American law that stems from that. It's a muddy field, the armies are small, but everything depends on the struggle. It's one of the climactic moments of European history.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28484146


Not sure I agree on his last point somehow, at some point there would have been the clash with King John, it may not have happened when it did but no doubt would have happened later.
Interesting for those who are interested though

Donno if I agree.  Is it less important than Bosworth Field, which ended the dynasty of the Plantagenets...and Shakespeare thought enough to write about?

I think this battle was as important to the British as the American Revolution was to the US.  If you look at British history as a march from monarchy to democracy, you have to look at this battle as the first field stone.

What do you think, Cass?

It is very hard to pin down 'one' battle as most important. Both those you mention have a claim to it. Along with the two big naval battles of the Spanish Armada in 1588 and Trafalgar Square.

Had we lost either of those battles we would surely have been invaded by significantly more powerful nations at each time, in the case of Spain it might well have led to England becoming part of the vast Spanish Empire.

Both those battles led to an enhancing of British power and advanced the growth of the British Empire (or what would eventually become the British Empire in the case of the defeat of the Armada).

But certainly Bouvines has a good claim in terms of its significance.

Bosworth I'm more dubious of. In terms of the impact on the advance to democracy surely one of the more decisive battles of the Civil Wars would be more important. Shakespeare had good reason to write about Bosworth as it celebrated the founder of the Tudor Dynasty and Grandfather of the ruling Queen   

Original Quill wrote:Donno if I agree.  Is it less important than Bosworth Field, which ended the dynasty of the Plantagenets...and Shakespeare thought enough to write about?

I think this battle was as important to the British as the American Revolution was to the US.  If you look at British history as a march from monarchy to democracy, you have to look at this battle as the first field stone.

What do you think, Cass?

It certainly was important for the time Quill, but for the time only, what happened later with Henry V coming to the throne through Richard II being ousted would be more important to Bosworth Fields so they make to me a very lose connection which is based upon more the people through each era.

King John was not the best of Kings, but an interesting one at that, I might add.

Eilzel wrote:It is very hard to pin down 'one' battle as most important. Both those you mention have a claim to it. Along with the two big naval battles of the Spanish Armada in 1588 and Trafalgar Square.

Had we lost either of those battles we would surely have been invaded by significantly more powerful nations at each time, in the case of Spain it might well have led to England becoming part of the vast Spanish Empire.

Both those battles led to an enhancing of British power and advanced the growth of the British Empire (or what would eventually become the British Empire in the case of the defeat of the Armada).

But certainly Bouvines has a good claim in terms of its significance.

Bosworth I'm more dubious of. In terms of the impact on the advance to democracy surely one of the more decisive battles of the Civil Wars would be more important. Shakespeare had good reason to write about Bosworth as it celebrated the founder of the Tudor Dynasty and Grandfather of the ruling Queen   

British power though through this time was more ups and downs, to the point England once had a Kingdom of France, being as Henry V felt it was his birth right, which this birth right is one of the more interesting arguments over he English crown for the time. His son certainly lost so much for the English and it was more Henry VIII that built up our navy, though his land campaigns were a disaster. The War of the Roses was always about a divide within English society, where once it was perceived of people viewing those north and south as foreign. There are to many what if's based off just one historical aspect where again even if John had won here no doubt within a few more years of his reign being the spend thrift he was, the nobles would have still risen up against him

That's often the case didge with a lot of these battles. In fact that we can possibly say some changes would have come about regardless of Bouvines then this diminishes the particulat significance of the battle and makes it more about the figure- in this case King John. Without John's bad leadership there may never have been a Magna Carta. Which is fascinating in itself as it centres certain historical moments of significance on the character of powerful individuals (Julius Caesar, Bismark, Charles I are other individuals who caused massive changes greater than any individual battle they took part in).

Eilzel wrote:That's often the case didge with a lot of these battles. In fact that we can possibly say some changes would have come about regardless of Bouvines then this diminishes the particulat significance of the battle and makes it more about the figure- in this case King John. Without John's bad leadership there may never have been a Magna Carta. Which is fascinating in itself as it centres certain historical moments of significance on the character of powerful individuals (Julius Caesar, Bismark, Charles I are other individuals who caused massive changes greater than any individual battle they took part in).

You might as well say without John full stop, but he did exist, and to hinge on one battle not knowing afterwards if he would still create the atmosphere to the barons rising up is very short sighted from this article to claim it would not have happened. Of course it is all conjecture, but I very much doubt it would have changed the barons rising up, as he was a very poor ruler

John the Worst

Eilzel wrote:It is very hard to pin down 'one' battle as most important. Both those you mention have a claim to it. Along with the two big naval battles of the Spanish Armada in 1588 and Trafalgar Square.

Had we lost either of those battles we would surely have been invaded by significantly more powerful nations at each time, in the case of Spain it might well have led to England becoming part of the vast Spanish Empire.

Both those battles led to an enhancing of British power and advanced the growth of the British Empire (or what would eventually become the British Empire in the case of the defeat of the Armada).

But certainly Bouvines has a good claim in terms of its significance.

Bosworth I'm more dubious of. In terms of the impact on the advance to democracy surely one of the more decisive battles of the Civil Wars would be more important. Shakespeare had good reason to write about Bosworth as it celebrated the founder of the Tudor Dynasty and Grandfather of the ruling Queen   

Yes, that was my reason for raising Bosworth. Probably more significant in the turn of events--and Shakespeare was just a good ass-kisser, lol--but Bovines was more significant in ideological terms.

Incidentally, few people celebrate the flight of James II, but that was also a highly significant event.

Original Quill wrote:

Eilzel wrote:It is very hard to pin down 'one' battle as most important. Both those you mention have a claim to it. Along with the two big naval battles of the Spanish Armada in 1588 and Trafalgar Square.

Had we lost either of those battles we would surely have been invaded by significantly more powerful nations at each time, in the case of Spain it might well have led to England becoming part of the vast Spanish Empire.

Both those battles led to an enhancing of British power and advanced the growth of the British Empire (or what would eventually become the British Empire in the case of the defeat of the Armada).

But certainly Bouvines has a good claim in terms of its significance.

Bosworth I'm more dubious of. In terms of the impact on the advance to democracy surely one of the more decisive battles of the Civil Wars would be more important. Shakespeare had good reason to write about Bosworth as it celebrated the founder of the Tudor Dynasty and Grandfather of the ruling Queen   

Yes, that was my reason for raising Bosworth.  Probably more significant in the turn of events--and Shakespeare was just a good ass-kisser, lol--but Bovines was more significant in ideological terms.

Incidentally, few people celebrate the flight of James II, but that was also a highly significant event.

Actually as you mention it the whole Glorious Revolution and Bill of Rights was one of the most important events in our history in general.

sorry guys for delay - busy day.

interesting article but no I don't think it was of huge importance. John had already pissed off the vast majority of his barons by this time and as Lez said a showdown was on the cards - in fact he had already had many showdowns with them. he was a spoilt brat who was indulged and egged on by his mother Eleanor of Aquitaine to piss of dad Henry II. he was also resentful of his older brothers being given vast lands and kingdoms and countdoms - don't forget his tag was John Lackland.

the English monarchy didn't actually lose their final French possession in Europe until Bloody Mary Tudor lost Calais - Elizabeth made only half hearted attempts to get it back and you could make a case for Canada not being completely won over by Quebec.

Yes a lot of lesser known battles were of perhaps more significance later on as they were but a stepping stone or the first in a chain of events. This battle was much more important from the French perspective.

Bosworth was important but not because of Shakespeare (and remember he wrote to kiss ass with Elizabeth who hero worshipped her father and grandfather so I think of him as a Tudor spin doctor and propagandist first). Bosworth was significant for being the final battle of The War of the Roses (yes yes yes I know it was called that hundreds of years later) that allowed stability both politically and economically in England.

thc when I don't have to compile a shopping list or have a demanding cat on my lap.....x

Cass wrote:sorry guys for delay - busy day.

interesting article but no I don't think it was of huge importance. John had already pissed off the vast majority of his barons by this time and as Lez said a showdown was on the cards - in fact he had already had many showdowns with them. he was a spoilt brat who was indulged and egged on by his mother Eleanor of Aquitaine to piss of dad Henry II. he was also resentful of his older brothers being given vast lands and kingdoms and countdoms - don't forget his tag was John Lackland.

the English monarchy didn't actually lose their final French possession in Europe until Bloody Mary Tudor lost Calais - Elizabeth made only half hearted attempts to get it back and you could make a case for Canada not being completely won over by Quebec.

Yes a lot of lesser known battles were of perhaps more significance later on as they were but a stepping stone or the first in a chain of events. This battle was much more important from the French perspective.

Bosworth was important but not because of Shakespeare (and remember he wrote to kiss ass with Elizabeth who hero worshipped her father and grandfather so I think of him as a Tudor spin doctor and propagandist first). Bosworth was significant for being the final battle of The War of the Roses (yes yes yes I know it was called that hundreds of years later) that allowed stability both politically and economically in England.

thc when I don't have to compile a shopping list or have a demanding cat on my lap.....x

Thank you me Lady, I knew you would agree, my lovely history teacher!x
Like I said even if he had won at some point there would have been a showdown as he was inept financially, let alone how he ruled and of those within his inner circle.
Sadly though this era the war of the roses should be taught more as there is so much interesting history to learn from this era.

Right am now going to watch Ironclad, as this debate has got me in the mood to watch.


Have fun all and enjoy your evening

Didge wrote:

Cass wrote:sorry guys for delay - busy day.

interesting article but no I don't think it was of huge importance. John had already pissed off the vast majority of his barons by this time and as Lez said a showdown was on the cards - in fact he had already had many showdowns with them. he was a spoilt brat who was indulged and egged on by his mother Eleanor of Aquitaine to piss of dad Henry II. he was also resentful of his older brothers being given vast lands and kingdoms and countdoms - don't forget his tag was John Lackland.

the English monarchy didn't actually lose their final French possession in Europe until Bloody Mary Tudor lost Calais - Elizabeth made only half hearted attempts to get it back and you could make a case for Canada not being completely won over by Quebec.

Yes a lot of lesser known battles were of perhaps more significance later on as they were but a stepping stone or the first in a chain of events. This battle was much more important from the French perspective.

Bosworth was important but not because of Shakespeare (and remember he wrote to kiss ass with Elizabeth who hero worshipped her father and grandfather so I think of him as a Tudor spin doctor and propagandist first). Bosworth was significant for being the final battle of The War of the Roses (yes yes yes I know it was called that hundreds of years later) that allowed stability both politically and economically in England.

thc when I don't have to compile a shopping list or have a demanding cat on my lap.....x

Thank you me Lady, I knew you would agree, my lovely history teacher!x
Like I said even if he had won at some point there would have been a showdown as he was inept financially, let alone how he ruled and of those within his inner circle.
Sadly though this era the war of the roses should be taught more as there is so much interesting history to learn from this era.

Agree on that, it is a travesty the Hundred Year War and War of the Roses are almost skipped over to spend (what seemed like) an eternity on Henry VIII.

Cass, I still question the overall importance of Bosworth. Not that it wasn't important, but stability would have come about had Henry VII been defeated, only we'd know the Wars were a Yorkist triumph in the end. It's another one of the great 'what ifs' didge referred to I guess. Though we could probably all much more easily argue against any one battle being the 'most important' than actually cite a suitable battle for such a claim   

Cass' opinion certainly convinces me that nothing is of singular importance in British history--of importance, yes, but of singular importance, no.

The Magna Carta was important, but Bouvines was not.  But this is only important in deciding on chapter titles in history books.

Les, I still maintain that Richard III was a greater king than people give him credit for.  Cass, I agree that Shakespeare was a big ass-kisser, as indeed I said above.  The Wars (not War) of the Roses were indeed won by the Yorks.  The only connection that Richmond had to the Lancasters was a tenuous, illegitimate connection through his mother; and his wife was definitely a York.

And if anybody takes a close look at the portrait of Henry VIII and compares it with his grandfather, Edward IV, you can see where Henry got his cantankerousness (since cameras were not around, representational portraits were much more accurate).





Remember, his mother was Elizabeth of York, daughter of Edward IV.

Have to disagree with that Quill, and is so unscientific to the point of nonsense, he was actually quite placid until his jousting accident, which many think the injury fucked him up

Didge wrote:Have to disagree with that Quill, and is so unscientific to the point of nonsense, he was actually quite placid until his jousting accident, which many think the injury fucked him up

Physically, yes.  But you can't change that face. He was the exact image of his grandfather.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Have to disagree with that Quill, and is so unscientific to the point of nonsense, he was actually quite placid until his jousting accident, which many think the injury fucked him up

Physically, yes.  But you can't change that face.

Oh come on Quill we are talking about psychological traits being passed on, he changed after that accident in jousting, that is not something passed on is it mate?
Before then he was very placid.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Physically, yes.  But you can't change that face.

Oh come on Quill we are talking about psychological traits being passed on, he changed after that accident in jousting, that is not something passed on is it mate?
Before then he was very placid.

I disagree.  Henry was educated to be contemplative, as he was brought up to be Archbishop of Canterbury.  He was not as arrogant as he was in his later years, but I have to believe that was because of his quarrel with the Pope, Clement VII, and ultimately Catherine's nephew, Charles, the Holy Roman Emperor:

The Tudors wrote: Henry VIII realized that the only way he could legally do this [marry Anne Bolyn] was to petition the Pope to annul the marriage. He cited Leviticus 20:19 “And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless” (King James Version). Unfortunately for Henry VIII, Catherine’s nephew, the Holy Roman Emperor Charles, was basically holding the Pope hostage in Rome so he couldn’t grant Henry’s petition even if he had wanted to.  The Pope didn’t want to grant the petition because it would be disregarding a previous petition allowing the marriage.

This committed Henry to the Church of England, and embroiled him in the whole Protestant revolution.  

But his personality was definitely that of the impetuous Edward IV, who was hot after a Lancastrian woman, Elizabeth Wydeville, sister of the Earl of Rivers, and brought the whole thing down.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

Oh come on Quill we are talking about psychological traits being passed on, he changed after that accident in jousting, that is not something passed on is it mate?
Before then he was very placid.

I disagree.  Henry was educated to be contemplative, as he was brought up to be Archbishop of Canterbury.  He was not as arrogant as he was in his later years, but I have to believe that was because of his quarrel with the Pope, Clement VII, and ultimately Catherine's nephew, Charles, the Holy Roman Emperor:

The Tudors wrote: Henry VIII realized that the only way he could legally do this [marry Anne Bolyn] was to petition the Pope to annul the marriage. He cited Leviticus 20:19 “And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless” (King James Version). Unfortunately for Henry VIII, Catherine’s nephew, the Holy Roman Emperor Charles, was basically holding the Pope hostage in Rome so he couldn’t grant Henry’s petition even if he had wanted to.  The Pope didn’t want to grant the petition because it would be disregarding a previous petition allowing the marriage.

This committed Henry to the Church of England, and embroiled him in the whole Protestant revolution.  

But his personality was definitely that of the impetuous Edward IV, who was hot after a Yorkish woman, Elizabeth Wydeville, sister of Earl Rivers, and brought the whole thing down.

All irrelevant, you made an absurd association based on genetics on facial features based on temperament, which as seen is based on his later actions, whilst ignoring his earlier actions as a King

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I disagree.  Henry was educated to be contemplative, as he was brought up to be Archbishop of Canterbury.  He was not as arrogant as he was in his later years, but I have to believe that was because of his quarrel with the Pope, Clement VII, and ultimately Catherine's nephew, Charles, the Holy Roman Emperor:



This committed Henry to the Church of England, and embroiled him in the whole Protestant revolution.  

But his personality was definitely that of the impetuous Edward IV, who was hot after a Yorkish woman, Elizabeth Wydeville, sister of Earl Rivers, and brought the whole thing down.

All irrelevant, you made an absurd association based on genetics on facial features based on temperament, which as seen is based on his later actions, whilst ignoring his earlier actions as a King

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree.  I believe in genetics...and I believe genetics influence personality as well as facial structure.  In my view, Henry had the identical personality as Edward IV.  Like grandfather, like son, in this case.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


All irrelevant, you made an absurd association based on genetics on facial features based on temperament, which as seen is based on his later actions, whilst ignoring his earlier actions as a King

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree.  I believe in genetics...and I believe genetics determine personality as well as facial structure.  In my view, Henry had the identical personality as Edward IV.  Like grandfather, like son, in this case.

I am sure you do believe in this buddy, but lets look at the facts, his personality changed after his accident, you have to prove before this it was the same Quill.



I am interested in what you feel was poor with Edward IV, and that will have to wait until tomorrow buddy, as I have to sign off, but no way is it genetic

Yes, well the story of Edward IV is one of a 19-year old kid who couldn't keep his pants on. He wanted to bed Elizabeth, but she held out for marriage.

Talk about history. That marriage spelled doom for his brother, Richard, and ultimately led to the downfall of the whole Plantagenet dynasty.

We can talk more later on. Ciao.

Original Quill wrote:Yes, well the story of Edward IV is one of a 19-year old kid who couldn't keep his pants on.  He wanted to bed Elizabeth, but she held out for marriage.

Talk about history.  That marriage spelled doom for his brother, Richard, and ultimately led to the downfall of the whole Plantagenet dynasty.

We can talk more later on.  Ciao.

Oh come on that is sexual traits which you could associate with any personal noble what was constituted as noble blood.
You are making a claim to genetics and similarities in personalty, they are far removed from each other in how they were and more so after Henry had his accident


All the best buddy now we have a good history debate, amen to that eh and thank you

^lez.......lol...admit it you were on the Tudors ' side all along.

guys wish I could say more but my head is BANGING. Had a busy few family days and now paying the price (and a bottle of pinot grigio and no food last night).

^quill sorry I agree with didge re Henry VIII. ALL the monarchs (male) down the years with a few exceptions had a tendency to "share it out" - he wasn't that special apart from the marriages and beheadings.....in fact the last Catherine was married more as a nurse and companion than for having kids - although she nearly lost her head over religion.

Yes, Cass, the beheadings and rash behaviour are what I am talking about, not bed sharing.  T'were it the latter, it would be much wider than merely a royal or two.

It's the madcap impetuousness of the two...when you read about Edward IV you see how carefree and incautious he was.  Henry was the same way...which is why he ended up so friendless.  Headstrong licentiousness is a good way to describe it. Henry's lack of caution tended a bit more toward violence and Edward was a bit more family oriented.  Even Cathrine Parr kept her distance with Henry.  The point is that Edward was the template for Henry...only the times were different.

I can't really make the argument in the limited space and interest here.  One day I'll write a book about it.

I agree limited space, time and my horrible kindle make it.

nope Edward IV was a playhouse but I don't think impetuous. Henry had a serious case of younger brother envy as well as a massive case of over inflated ego combined with the divine right and then the accident. he convinced himself that God wouldn't give him boys due to his marrying KoA as it was against the Bible whereas when he married her years before he conveniently overlooked that passage and quoted one saying you should marry your brothers wife etc....

by the time he came to losing interest in AB - she was losing her looks, becoming a shrew so he snatched on the excuses her enemies had planted in his ear - the old no fire without smoke ploy as well as having suffered the injury and probably starting to suffer from syphilis as well as other health issues.

no one else in the house of York had been like this including Richard II whose humpback was again Propogated by Tudor spin.

sorry I didn't see your kiss ass reply due to cat.

I wasn't trying originally to say the there was nothing earth shattering in English history - just commenting on the original OP about Bouvins being more important to the French. Battle of Trafalgar, the Armada and the Battle of Britain (op sea lion) and also the English Civil Wars and Charles I's behaviour were very significant among others.

I read Edward as having been extremely impetuous.  Just the story of how he was roped into marriage shows how easily he threw caution to the wind.  It was the reason for his falling out with the Earl of Warwick…and the next war.

One biographer summarizes:

Wars of the Roses wrote:His strongest weapons were the fine presence, the affable manners (even with citizens), and the love of pleasure and entertainments which secured his personal popularity. In his last years he was given to self indulgence and scandalous excesses, which did not, however, alienate the London citizens, with whose wives he was too familiar. Most of the power at court was in the hands of the Woodvilles, in spite of their unpopularity; the more arduous work of administration in the north was left to Richard of Gloucester. If as a prince of the Renaissance Edward was the first to rule tyrannically in England...,

Now, doesn't that sound a lot like Henry VIII, who followed by two generations?  I was originally struck by this thought while reading, Weir, Alison, The Wars of the Roses (1996); see also, Seward, Desmond, The Wars of the Roses Through the Lives of Five Men and Women of the Fiftheenth Century (1995).  Both of them stressed what a rogue Edward was.

I would agree that Henry had serious self-doubts, as they made him so violent later in life.  He died a bitter and vindictive person.  I don’t know what was his self-talk over marrying Catherine of Aragon, his brother’s wife, but I tend to think that his troubles with Clement, and more particularly Charles, were what toughened him up…not his beliefs about how he was getting along with god.  I don’t place much importance on the jousting accident either—he had two—but I feel his illness and alienation from close friends are what made him bitter.  Take a look at, Guy, John, The Tudors, and the more comprehensive, Tudor England (1990).

Like Edward, Henry kept digging deeper and deeper holes to put himself in, and never knew why or how.

Quill, have a read of this, you may find it interesting:


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/the-jousting-accident-that-turned-henry-viii-into-a-tyrant-1670421.html

Didge wrote:Quill, have a read of this, you may find it interesting:


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/the-jousting-accident-that-turned-henry-viii-into-a-tyrant-1670421.html  

Interesting. Made all the more, because of current research on head trauma. It is said that a severe head injury can bring out paranoia and anger issues...exacerbated by alcohol. And, I've seen it first hand, in a friend who had a motorcycle accident in Italy. And, she drank to excess.

The Battle of Brunanburh. "The moment when Englishness came of age".

We Are The English.



The Battle of Brunanburh. The mighty King Athelstan surveys the field before the start of hostilities.

The battle resulted in the English smashing the combined forces of the Scot's, Welsh and Vikings. It was the most famous battle of the time and has been described as "the moment when Englishness came of age"

I got hold of Alison Weir's new(ish) book ELIZABETH OF YORK..........WHOHOO - will let you know what it says about her father Quill

and Anna Whitelock called the Queen's Bed about Elizabeth's court, one on the writings of Louisa Adams wife of Pres. John Quincy Adams and Flappers about 6 famous women (Josephine Baker, Tallulah Bankhead, Diana Cooper, Zelda Fitzgerald, Nancy Cunard and Tamara de Lempicka)

Color Cass very happy!

Ambitious!

Original Quill wrote:Ambitious!

I am a librarian darlink......no overdue fees!!!!

I know. When I'm in Sonoma County I live in the library. I've ordered most of their books--they should name the collection after me.

It's a win-win situation. I pick the titles, they purchase them.