This paper originally appeared in the Quarterly Journal of the Battlefields Trust

The site of the second Battle of Northampton in 1460 has given rise to considerable debate in recent years. The three main contenders proposed being an area directly between the northern boundary of the abbey and the River Nene, an area between one and two miles to the North-East of the Abbey on the banks of the river, and an area south of Abbey on the site of the present golf course. This paper re-examines the evidence, from the historical, military, and geographic viewpoints and offers a fourth possible location for the battle.

Before looking at the battle itself, it is worth examining some of the sources. A commonly cited document is “The Union of the Noble and Illustre Famielies of Lancastre and York” by Edward Hall written around 1547, nearly 100 years after the battle. It appears that a good proportion of it is plagiarised from Polydore Vergil’s works , with other parts from de Comines, Fabyan and other now obscure sources. John Leland (Leyland), antiquarian to Henry VIII also wrote his “Itinerary” nearly eighty years later, after traveling the country gathering stories. He tells us nothing of the battle except its location, which had been obtained from local sources, although it does not tell us what they were .

Three Fifteen-Century Chronicles, although its author is not listed, according to the Editor, was written at the time of Edward IV. However, it is littered with inaccuracies including giving the date of the battle as 1459 . Another anonymous near-contemporary report is the English Chronicle of the reigns of Richard II, Henry IV, Henry V and Henry VI which appears to have been written before 1471 . Another contemporary chronicler is the Burgundian Jehan de Waurin who wrote “Recuiel des Croniques et Anchiennes Istories de la Grant Bretagne”, it is a collection of accounts from a variety of sources and gives two very different versions of the Battle of Northampton .

The Lancastrian Position

On hearing the news that the Calais Lords (Earl of March, Warwick, and Fauconberg) had returned from France, Henry VI and Margaret of Anjou left Coventry for Northampton with their army under the command of the Duke of Buckingham. With them was the Duke of Somerset, John Talbot, the Earl of Shrewsbury, Lord Gray of Ruthyn, John, Viscount, Lord Beaumont, Thomas Lord of Egremond and Sir William Lucy. It is also quite probable that the Sir Andrew Trollope the Lancastrian military advisor, who was described by Waurin as “un tres soubtil home de guerre” was present, being under the patronage of the Duke of Somerset. As was common practice of the time, they set up camp outside the town. It is the location and nature of this camp that is key to the whole battle.

The Register  of Abbot John Whethamstede of St Albans  described it as strongly fortified camp equipped with engines of war “Dominus Rex suam posuerat castrametationem”   and  “tam de machinis suis bellicis, et fortitudine castrametationis “ , and in another account:-

“The kyng at Northamptone lay atte Freres [Friars], and had ordeyned there a strong and a myghty feeld, in the medowys beside the Nonry, armed and arayed wythe gonnys, hauyng the ryuer at hys back” .

According to Gregory’s Chronicle it was a “Castramatatio armed and arrayed with gonnys” which can be translated as a military camp and only suggests that it might have been similar to the defences at Ludlow .

However, no source describes its appearance.  In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, artillery was primarily a siege rather than a field weapon. Between 1449 and 1450, during the closing stages of the Hundred Year War, the French conducted sixty successful sieges where artillery played a major part . The first occasion where field artillery had a decisive effect on the outcome of a battle was Formigny (15 April 1450) although this was more by chance than design . The next occasion was at Castillon on 17 July 1453, when an English force under Sir John Talbot attempted to relieve the siege of the town. The French had built a fortified artillery park out of range of the town, which according to the Sociêtié de l’Oriflamme had been built primarily to engage a relief force. Seven hundred French workmen had made an irregular shaped trench lined field fortification based upon a dry ancient river bed leading off the Lidore tributary of the Dordogne and contained between 6,000 and 9,000 men. It also contained a reported 300 guns although a large number were probably handguns .
Contemporary images of later field fortifications, such as Fornovo (1495) and Pavia (1525) also show irregular shaped positions consisting of a bank with embrasures for the guns, behind a ditch, and water feature. 

It is therefore not unreasonable to assume that the Battle of Northampton fortifications had a similar appearance, an irregular shaped bank with a ditch or stream to the front. This is even more probable when it is known that the son of Sir John Talbot (who was killed at Castillon) and a number of his contemporaries were present at both battles . Where then would the King site his position? Contemporary reports place it between Hardingstone and Sandyfforde and next to the Abbey “besyde Northhampton in the Newfelde be twene Harsyngton (Hardingstone) and Sandyfforde”  and “Et iuxta Northampton' Castrametatus est rex in campo inter villam que vocatur Hardyngeston et domum monialum que vocatur de Pratis...” . Leland also tells us that “the battle was fought on the Hills without the South Gate where is a right goodley crosse” The Lancastrian forces were aware of the approach of the Yorkists from London, and therefore it would have been essential to blockade the London Road. If they had positioned themselves on the hill, they would have had buildings on the left and higher ground on the right. There would have been a number of avenues of attack so the guns would have to be dispersed, reducing their effectiveness. With the maximum range of period field guns around 400 yards, it therefore makes sense to position the guns close to the London Road. Equally, it makes no sense to point them towards Hardingstone, because the side of the hill that faces towards the Abbey would have limited the guns and the position could be outflanked from the Road. Contemporary reports also state that Warwick could see into the position from a hill and was close enough to observe pools of water caused by the previous days rain . The Archbishop of Canterbury also viewed the battle from Queen Eleanor’s Cross. To see into the Lancastrian camp and more importantly the pools of water inside it, the camp must have been close to both the ridge and cross. By simply standing in both places it can be seen that this then discounts the Nuns Mill and Ransome Road theories because both are a considerable distance from the road and the high ground (see fig. 1), and the later site would have also had the buildings of the Abbey obstructing the view. We are therefore looking for an irregular shaped position, facing the London Road with water or a ditch to its front and close enough to the road to both bring artillery to bear and be seen into from the high ground. 

A water course running from North to South that could form the front of the defences runs along the west side of the wooded area to the south of the Abbey (Next to the feature marked as “The Rookery” on the Ordnance Survey map). Fig 5. These established woods are clearly shown on eighteenth century maps. The water course, however is considerably older and is shown on the early seventeenth century (pre-development) maps, its source being a spring on the slope of Hardingstone Hill. Much has been made of the “Battle Dyke” furlong that supposedly ran west to east across what is now the golf course. An examination of the 1660 terrier maps shows that our north/south stream also runs through the western side of the Battle Dyke furlong . This then is probably from where its name is derived. The present wooded section of the water course is comparatively deep and allowing for silting etc. would have been much deeper and wider in earlier periods. In some sections, there are also the remains of a higher bank on the eastern side. The stream ends at the northern end of the wood, however there is a marsh area on the northern boundary of the Abbey and a wet depression that disappears at the modern road to the Abbey. If a line is drawn along the depression, it meets with the water course at the wood. If, at the time of the battle, this water were continuous to the earlier identified stream, then it would have been the ideal defensive position, protected on two sides by water. The similarities between this and the field of the Battle of Castillon are now all too apparent. As the battle was only seven years before Northampton, having seen the devastating effect that the French position had on the English force, the Lancastrians tried to emulate it at Northampton.

All that remains, is to compare this theory to the contemporary reports of the battle. Contemporary sources, tell us that the battle took place “be syde Northhampton in the Newfelde be twene Harsyngton and Sandyfforde” . Another report tells us that:-

“And for the feldys name of that oon parte on the northest syde it is callyd Cowemedewe. And that othir parte is I callyd Menthynfeld. And for the othir part is I callyd of tyme Sandyngford bregge nexte the towne. On the est syde there is a water melle [that] is called Sandford melle” .

The location of Sandyfforde has been lost in time and most historians have assumed that it was due north of Hardingstone. However, with the proposed site of the battle, if a line is drawn from Hardingstone through the position, we reach the banks of the river on the other side of the London Road, until recently, an area known for its sand and gravel quarries. The likely location for the ford would then be the Anglo-Saxon crossing point proposed by F. Lee . This crossed the Nene directly south of the present day Horseshoe Street , and had a mill to the east, known at one point as Marvell’s Mill . The Nene in this area is a myriad of springs, tributaries and other water courses. In the fifteenth century there was two bridges to the south of Northampton. The first was the bridge over the main river, which although now called “South Bridge” was once known as “St Thomas’ Bridge”. South of this was another bridge called “St Leonard’s Bridge” that crossed a tributary of the Nene and named after the Leper hospital that stood close to the junction of the current St Leonard’s Rd, Ransome Road, and London Road,. In the late 1870’s the bridge was culverted over to become part of the main Hardingstone sewer . Although the bridge is not there, its position can be located easily as the waterway can still be seen on the northern boundary of the Abbey. There is also a sewage pumping station at the culvert and Goodfellow sites the Hospital to the south of the tributary howeve. This means that it once flowed from Hardingstone and must have crossed the battlefield at some point and may have even been a continuation of the earlier mentioned spring. The modern historian also assumes that the Chroniclers knew which waterway was the river itself. However most chroniclers were not local, and could have assumed any one of the waterways to be the Nene! So, was the stream running from the Nene to Hardingstone, what was referred to as the Nene and it was this that was behind the Lancastrians? If this was the case, then the battlefield assumes a closer appearance to Castillon.

Any archaeological finds would help pinpoint the position of the battle. From a battle of this period we would expect to find ferrous and non-ferrous military objects such as arrow heads, chapes from scabbards, pieces of spur, mail etc. Work on Towton battlefield has also shown that personal items (buckles, buttons pendants etc.) are a good indication of the site of a battle .A search of the SMR has not revealed any finds in the whole area despite excavations at the railway yards (except the bodies) and the site of the Avon factory further upstream nor the development of the golf course . However, it has confirmed that the cross shaped earthwork (suggested by some as a military earthwork) in the Nuns Mill area, and shown on the 1948 aerial photograph had been excavated revealing a church (the field in which it stands is also called Church Meadow on 18th Century maps). More interesting, what it has revealed is four tumuli in the northern area of the park, which are approximately the sites of small circles of trees on the 18th Century maps (see Appendix 2.). The most northerly is attributed to a Roman fort or Saxon, the remainder are listed as Round Barrow’s, however there were no finds to support this supposition. Therefore, they could be burial mounds for the dead of the battle or gun platforms, although there is no record of them being used in this context before. If they were not gun platforms and were part of the Abbey or as originally suggested bronze age, then they would have provided further obstruction to a force in the Ransome Road area. There are also some intriguing crop marks visible in this vicinity. This could then possibly mean that the Lancastrian position was either much larger or further north. On the other hand, it could also mean that the water course/ditch did not flow in a straight line. We also have an intriguing Papal court case. Francesco Coppini, bishop of Terni and envoy of Pope Pius II who was with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Yorkists army, returned to Rome in 1462, he was denounced by the Pope for grievously exceeding his instructions during the battle.  It was alleged that he raised the standard of the Roman Catholic Church in battle against Christ’s faithful, gave plenary absolution to all those who fell in arms against the King and excommunicated all those fighting on the King’s side, forbidding burial to those who died in the fighting. Although he strenuously denied the charges, Coppini was deprived of his bishopric and sent to a Papal prison. So this throws up another anomaly that although the chroniclers state that the dead were buried in the Abbey, they may have been left on the field or moved to unhallowed ground at a later date, which possibly brings us back to the origins of the tumuli.

The main location proposed from the turn of the Twentieth Century was on the site of the now Ransome Road Industrial Estate, directly between the northern boundary of the abbey and the main river. There has been little evidence to support this except for the discovery of a number of bodies when the railway line was built. Both the report in the Natural History and Field Club of 1907 and the later “A Quincentenary: The Battle of Northampton, July 10th, 1460” follow Sir James Ramsey’s theory that the battle was fought half way between the Nene and the Abbey .  It appears that the location for the battle was deduced from two statements from the contemporary chroniclers, 1. That the battle was close to the Nene and 2. it was beside the Abbey, and possibly the find of the bodies. The 1907 report makes no mention of the party viewing earthworks or any other evidence to support this theory. The later “A Quincentenary” does agree that the exact site is disputed but suggests that Ramsey’s theory is reasonable . However, militarily, Ransome Road would not have been a good position because the buildings of the Abbey would have restricted the fields of fire of the cannon and provided cover for the attacking troops. This area was also subject to flooding (the area in which the Ramsey positions the defences is one metre below the river) and therefore quite probably underwater at the time of the battle . The railway lines where the bodies were found are themselves some distance from the river, and would have been in front of any defences sited with the river directly behind. We have been unable to locate details of any examination of these bodies. However, if we assume that they were indeed from the battle and not there for some other reason, such as from the nearby leper hospital  then they are in a location consistent with a battlefield rout from the main position. Also there was no reported finds when the factory units, which now stand on the site, were built.

The Battle

Military tactics in the fifteenth century were at best simplistic and based around the triple battle formation, although it is known that many commanders had at least read Vegetius’ Epitoma Rei Militaris, the fourth century manual. It is therefore dangerous to look for a complicated tactical plan.

The Yorkist force advanced on Northampton via Towcester and Blisworth arriving on 9 July, where they camped at Hunsbury Hill, 1.2 miles away from Delepre. The slope from Hardingstone to the plain below would have been too steep for Cavalry or for infantry to maintain formation under normal conditions, but when the fact that it had been raining heavily is considered then the mud would have made it impossible to traverse at all. Even if they came down one of the gentler slopes, with the range of both the cannon and archers exceeding three hundred yards, the attackers would have also immediately come into range. It is therefore improbable that they would have arrayed between the fortification and the slope. This means that the force must have moved, at least in part, along the London Road. The way they advanced is a matter of conjecture as Hall tells us that they advanced with the three battles one behind the other, Warwick in front (vanwarde), followed by the Earl of March and finally Fauconberg. However, both Waurin (in his first account) and Whethamstede state that it was Fauconberg in the lead.  Waurin’s second account states that it was also Warwick in front. This however, according to the chroniclers, may be due to Fauconberg leaving London first.

What happened next is only told in Hall and Waurin’s second account. Both give different commanders, the former giving Gray, the later Lord Beaumont. However, both agree that a force of around thirteen or fourteen hundred men were not in the fortification but outside to defend the town and were easily swept away by Warwick .

Conclusion

The course of the stream which ran under St. Leonard’s Bridge still needs to be identified for as can be seen above, it potentially changes the battlefield area. As the Rookery has been relatively undisturbed since the eighteenth century, if there was any archaeological evidence to support this theory, this is where it would be found. Another question that needs to be answered is, if the bodies remained on the field, why have no remains been found? However, until a survey or dig is carried out, the debate will no doubt continue.