Sunday, November 17, 2024

Night of Horrors

Screen Capture
Graham of Masongill grimaced as he tried to eat the thin soup before him. His mouth ached from the arrow he had taken earlier in the day. But his belly rumbled and he needed to build his strength back up.

The pursuit had ended not long after sunset, it seemed that the Yorkists were content to encamp on the field of their victory, among the bodies of the slain and those not quite dead. From where he sat he could occasionally glimpse their campfires. The snow had stopped and the night was growing ever colder.

He wondered what the morrow might bring.


"I have sinned, Father." Thomas muttered to the priest standing over him.

"You slew the enemies of your liege lord, young Thomas. There is no sin in that."

Thomas looked up at the man, "The Bible says - thou shalt not kill. I have killed this day, Father, and I reveled in it."

Thomas shuddered at the memory, at first he had been timid and terrified at the brutality around him. Then that wounded man had mocked him, something inside had snapped. He had cut that man down, then many another as they tried to flee the battlefield. Only the waters of the Beck had stopped his murderous spree.

"King David himself killed Goliath, on the field of battle. How is that so different from your actions this day, my son?"

Thomas shook his head, then bowed to the wisdom of the priest. "I ask forgiveness, Father."

"And you shall have it boy, when Edward sits upon the throne." With that, the priest walked away into the night.

Thomas heard Rufus clear his throat and then spit. "Priests," he said the word with contempt.

"How can you say that, Rufus? Have you no concern for your immortal soul?"

Rufus nodded in the direction the priest had gone, "I do, far more than that man. Did you know that he has lands greater than those of our Lord Norfolk?"

Thomas stood, he felt a confidence that he hadn't experienced before, "Rumors, Rufus. Rumors spread by those jealous of the Church's power."

"That may be boy, but that's a matter well above our station. For now ..."

Rufus stopped as the sergeant stepped into the light from the campfire, "You two, come with me. The killing ain't over yet."


Thirty to forty disarmed men huddled together, not far from the corpse-choked bank of the Cock Beck. From their livery, one could tell that they followed Henry, not Edward.

"Captives, Your Highness?"

"Fools who have surrendered, Warwick. Casting themselves upon my tender mercies. And stop referring to me that way, until the Archbishop himself places the crown upon my head, I am merely the Duke of York. Conduct yourself accordingly." Edward hadn't meant to bark at the man, but he desperately needed sleep. He wasn't himself.

"Certainly, Your Grace. What shall we do with these men?"

"Have them dig a pit, I'm sure you can figure out the rest on your own."

Edward spurred his horse and rode off with his retainers. He would find some place warm to spend the night, he would deal with the retreating Lancastrian army in the morning. What was left of them anyway.


Rufus and Thomas watched as the men dug a deep pit, Rufus wondered at its purpose. Thomas, now more bloody minded, thought he knew what it was for.

"Alright you lot, climb out, line up there, along the edge."

The prisoners looked at each other, some expected what was to come, a few still harbored illusions of survival.

"Your Grace, I am worth more to you alive, than dead, I demand ..."

Warwick's sword flashed in the firelight, the man's throat was opened and he reached up to try and stem the bleeding with his hands. He fell into the pit as he staggered, trying to stay alive.

The sergeant took that as a sign to begin, he bellowed, "Cut 'em down lads, leave no one standing!"

Hammers and axes rose and fell, many of the captives were dead long before the final blow was landed. Thomas' hammer landed time and again on the heads of the men who seemed to have little thought of fighting back. Arms were raised in a defensive posture, only to be shattered.

Rufus waded into the mob with his billhook, stabbing, thrusting, he was moaning low in his throat as he did so. The killing lust was upon him.

In a few short moments it was over. A steaming pile of dead bodies lay on the edge of the pit, some within it. Warwick had watched, a sick feeling in his stomach, the enemy would hear of this and they would remember. What had they done this day? But he swallowed his worries and barked out an order.

"Strip them of anything useful, then throw them in the pit. Cover them up when you're done. It's the devil's work we do this day lads, hide your crimes below the soil. Forget them if you can."

Warwick rode off.

The men all stood silently, looking at the bodies, looking at each other.

Then the sergeant said, "Get to it lads, these buggers ain't going to bury themselves."

The Battle of Towton was at an end.




34 comments:

  1. And the killing went on for decades. Humans tend to believe in the "climactic battle" ending a war but it usually doesn't. In our recent history neither Stalingrad or Kursk ended anything. The Japanese spent four years looking for the final battle which never happened. how many "victories" occurred in Viet Nam without changing the final result?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What usually ends a war is one side deciding it's had enough and quitting. WWII didn't end with a climactic battle, the Germans were simply ground down until they had nothing left. The Japanese were stunned into surrender by the atomic bombs,

      Many wars end in a fizzle, no grand final battle.

      Delete
    2. For the most part, the big killings ended after Towton. Eliminating the potential leaders of any real resistance did that. Not saying that there weren't continued killings, as English lords were always a fractious lot back then. And the occasional Welsh bandit or the yearly Scottish border crossings, and the eternal strife in Ireland. But for the most part peace did descend.

      Edward, under the advice of Richard of York (his brother, the not-a-hunchback because "Richard III" was a propaganda puff piece aimed at legitimizing the Tudors...) sought to mend fences and stop the tit-for-tat seizing and grantings of lands, to an extent, only really stonking down hard on those that broke the peace. Sadly, by seizing lands of the peace-breakers and evicting their families from the lands and granting the lands to his (Edward's) followers.

      Richard, once he ascended to the throne, was much more lenient to those who broke the peace. Sending the troublemakers into prison or confinement or exile, while allowing the non-trouble makers in the families to retain the lands or if stripped of lands, at least the incomes.

      All of that, sadly, went away when Henry Tudor took over and persecuted anyone who had an actual claim on the English throne. Persecuted by way of death of whole families, killing anyone and everyone who could stand in his way. Including the two princes, the sons of Edward, who were suspiciously alive way after Richard III took a billhook to the back of his head at the Battle of Bosworth Field.

      Delete
  2. I looked at the video where the header picture came from, camping like that is like sleeping under the stars ... I ended up thinking about the mosquitos. Mosquito netting & repellant has been available my whole lifetime :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've slept out under the stars twice, no tent. One time I had a cannon to keep the dew off (seriously, an actual cannon), the second time I had the blanket I pulled off of my rack in the barracks and used it to make a lean to. Kept me dry anyway. I don't recall mosquitoes being an issue, probably the wrong time of year. (No, I wouldn't do it in high summer, that's for sure.)

      Delete
    2. Yeah, mosquitos. Mrs. Andrew and I love the tv shows where people sit outside during the summer without being surrounded by screens.

      Delete
    3. Depends on where you are, get up on a ridge or hillside with a good breeze, it helps keep the buggers in check. But summer? Outside? Yeah, can be annoying as hell, those mosquitoes.

      Delete
  3. DANG! Did you feed Muse blue cheese, anchovy, and sauerkraut pizza just before bed? One of your darker offerings.

    All the more so because it captures reality all too well.

    I see Graham facing a rather painful death in the next few weeks from infection caused by that wound. Hard to keep mouth wounds clean.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The end of Towton was horrific and cruel, I tried to portray that. Guess I succeeded.

      Delete
    2. No worse than the horrors of Bosworth Field when Henry Tudor won. No worse than the horrors of the English Civil War.

      Delete
    3. You were successful Sarge...

      Delete
    4. Beans - Most battles ended horribly.

      Delete
    5. Thanks, Rob. History ain't pretty.

      Delete
  4. From everything I have read and those I have listened to, killing changes a person. I am conscious of it even when I practice my sword techniques: I do it for education and training, but in reality all of these techniques were used in actual combat with the intent to kill. As a character in Samurai Seven puts it, "To be samurai is to carry the weight of the dead" (apparently based on a quote from Hagakure; who knew).

    Dark, but completely accurate. Only prisoners worth a ransom were generally kept alive, unless the winning side was desperately in need of manpower.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I try to insert characters of my own invention into historical events as accurately as possible. Towton was an awfully nasty event, the bloodiest battle ever fought on English soil.

      Delete
  5. Honest academic question, not a criticism of the story. "Rufus stopped as the sergeant stepped into the light from the campfire..."

    Were these forces in the War of the Roses formally organized on military lines with a rank structure, and if so, was "sergeant" in use at that time? Or, were they more of a hastily aroused medieval mob where peasants followed (or were pushed by) their local overlords into larger aggregations, with leadership/mastery just carried over from their normal dismal daily level of servitude and dependency?

    Enquiring minds want to know.
    If just poetic license used to throw in Sergeant level leadership, 'tis not a sin and you are forgiven.

    John Blackshoe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not a rank per se as we think of it in modern times. A "sergeant" would be a man with some authority somewhere below a knight but above the common rankers. The armies in the War of the Roses weren't organized as the armies of today, but the sergeant was there, if not a formal rank, certainly a position.

      I use it in the story to indicate a man with some authority over the common soldiery.

      Delete
    2. J_B, in the Orders Militant (Knights of the Hospital and Knights Templar, for example), a sergeant was a non-noble. They could and did fight in the general mounted cavalry or on foot but could also provide services such as garrisons, guards, etc. They were considered a step above the general foot soldier but below the noble brethren of the Orders.

      Delete
    3. Sergeant is an anglicized version of 'Sejant,' which was brought over by the Norman conquerors in 1066. A trained man-at-arms but not a noble. And, yes, a man with some authority, a veteran, who has authority over the common soldiery, whether paid men-at-arms or conscripts.

      A knight would have a group of men under him. Squires (think 2nd Lieutenants.) Sergeants. Men-at-Arms or Conscripts. All of this was paid for by the knight, from his fief (that which paid his wages, from the Normans, literally used to be a fief de hauberk, or land to support armor.) Poor knights may only have 1-4 troops, maybe no-one, while a rich knight could have up to 60-100 squires, sergeants and man-at-arms directly under him.

      A lord would have maybe several knights serving under him. A baron would have lords serving under him and his own knights. A Count would have lords and his own knights and maybe barons. A duke may have all of the above and his own household troops.

      Captains were non-royal leaders of trained bands of troops. Maybe a leader of artillery (where we get gun-captain from) or a band of bowmen or cavalry or heavy foot. Key word is 'trained.' A good noble would treat, in matters military, a captain as at least equal to a knight.

      Delete
    4. And then there were, at the time of the Roses, 'trained bands' which were basically militia, formed from guilds or local areas. Militia, but very well trained militia. They had a lot of behind-the-scenes political power, as they could throw their weight for or against a noble, even a king, and had the money and clout to force changes.

      Delete
    5. TB - Didn't know that about the Orders Militant. Knew they were well-organized, Need sergeants for that. 😎

      Delete
    6. Beans - As always, thank you for contributing your expertise in this area.

      Delete
    7. "A lord would have maybe several knights serving under him. A baron would have lords serving under him and his own knights. A Count would have lords and his own knights and maybe barons. A duke may have all of the above and his own household troops."

      The oaths of fealty could get complicated. "I swear fealty to Lord Argbargle, and if he have disputes I shall come in my own self, and with 6 men at arms, excepting that if he disputes with Baron Snicklefritz, I shall send to him 5 men at arms, and myself and one man at arms shall serve the Baron." I read in translation one that had a round dozen such exceptions.

      Fealty worked both up and down, and, again, it wasn't necessarily Tolkienesque absolutism. Lots of, "Well, ifs" and "in the case ofs' were in many of the oaths.

      Delete
    8. Oaths are often matters of convenience.

      Delete
    9. It was not uncommon for a lord to send one child to one side, the other child to another, in hopes of having one child survive on the winning side.

      Delete
  6. Quite the timing on this post on this day Sarge. Civil wars can be so uncivil.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Excellent post, as usual. Medieval battles were far more horrid than most modern 1st world people can get their pampered little minds around. They think shooting someone is horrible. Yes, horrible, but in a lot of ways so much 'cleaner' than the old ways.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cleaner indeed, getting hacked to death ain't pretty!

      Delete
  8. A humorous look at some of the complications of medieval relationships, a little ditty titled "Welsh History 101b"
    to the tune of "Ashgrove."

    https://mudcat.org/@displaysong.cfm?SongID=7694

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, the Welsh. "Hey, Llewellyn, what are the English doing over there?" "Well, they're building something called a 'castle.'" "Oh, okay." (Walks away, ignores it.)

      4 years later, "Holy Leeks, Llewellyn, yon loons have filled that thing with soldiers, we must attack now!" (Fails spectacularly, border shifts another 10-20 miles, English start buiding... a castle.)

      "Hey, Llewellyn, what are the English doing over there?" "Building a castle." "Again? What loons." (walks away...)

      4 years later...

      Delete

Just be polite... that's all I ask. (For Buck)
Can't be nice, go somewhere else...

NOTE: Comments on posts over 5 days old go into moderation, automatically.