What is wrong with this map. And other things

Some of you will be familiar with the britishbattles.com website. Lots of cool pictures (some of which might even be out of copyright and used with permission) and nice maps by a bloke called John Fawkes. The maps often pop up elsewhere as they are nice and clear and enable a wargamer to work out what was where. The battle descriptions are very clear and to the point.

Alas, the site isn't always accurate, and whoever runs it doesn't respond to their "contact us" email address. Given that situation, I thought I'd better (with my Northamptonshire Battlefields Society hat on) just post a few comments on the map and description of one of the battlefields we campaign for, Northampton 1460.

I will pass over the reference to "Delapre  Abbey" as everyone calls it that now (it was actually the Convent of St Mary de la Pre at the time) and proceed to the material errors in the information provided.

I have marked up the map to make things easy to follow.

A: Delapre Deer Park. This area has never been a deer park. It the 19th century the Bouverie family turned the area over to park land to train their fox hunter horses. At the time of the battle it was arable farmed by the Convent and Hardingstone village. The area would have been planted with crops and laid out in ridge and furrow, remains of which can be seen to day.

B: Copse. This is an area now known as "The Rookery". It was planted by the Bouveries in the 19th century to look like a fox covert. It was not there in 1460.

C: Wooded area. All of these trees are modern, having been planted in the 19th century.

D: Eleanor Cross area. The Cross, at the time, was not surrounded by trees. It stood on the highest point to the south of the town gates, so it could be seen from the town and the Convent. This portrayal doesn't even show the area as it is now, as there's no gap between the trees in this area and area "C" discussed above. 

E: Delapre Farm: This is not contemporary.

F: The map omits the Fulbrook and Battle Dyke, both of which had an impact on the battle. I have marked their approximate course.

G: The Lancastrian defensive position. Modern analysis places the defences in the location of "F" on the map, but there is still the possibility that the Lancastrians were to the north, the interpretation this account prefers. I have copied the website description of the location, and footnoted it:

"The Yorkists found the Lancastrian army entrenched on the northern boundary of the Deer Park of Delapré Abbey...The Delapré Abbey Deer Park comprised a rectangle, bordered by a ditch and fence (1). The Abbey lay in the centre of the park. The combined ditch and fence, the ditch being on the inner side, existed to keep the deer in and poachers out and formed a barrier some 10 feet in height (2). The Lancastrian army was positioned along the northern boundary, facing into the estate (3). At each corner of the Deer Park were small enclosures, which the Lancastrians fortified(4). The Lancastrians possessed guns which were in position along the northern perimeter fence. The Yorkist approach to the Lancastrian position lay through the Delapré Abbey Deer Park, an area of grazing and copses (5)".

(1) The area was not, and has never been, a rectangle, surrounded by a ditch and fence. This is complete fantasy.

(2) There were no deer, and consequently no poachers. There is no source giving the height of the fence as 10 feet high, as there's no source saying there was one at all.

(3) In accounts that place the Lancastrian army to the north, it is said to be with its back to the river, having dug a ditch for protection, not on the edge of the Convent's lands. 

(4) No. There were no small enclosures (LIDAR surveys have been done) and consequently they weren't fortified.

(5) The Yorkists would have advanced through planted crops. There were no grazing animals, and all the trees were planted subsequently to the battle.

In conclusion, this isn't even a good description of the theory that has now been discounted.

It's not just the map and the location description. Let me share with you this  description of the arms and armour used:

"Uniforms, arms and equipment at the Battle of Northampton:  The senior commanders and their noble supporters and knights rode to battle on horseback, in armour, with sword, lance and shield. Their immediate entourage comprised mounted men-at-arms, in armour and armed with sword, lance and shield, although often fighting on foot."

The shield was obsolete by 1460 for a man in full plate and no one would have been carrying one.

I'll stop now as I've been told before not to overdo these things. In short, however, there is very little of value to be gained from using this site, and its account of Northampton should be deleted. 

I won't comment on any of the other battles covered, as I don't have any form of responsibility for them. I'll just say that if you want to understand Northampton 1460, you should check out Mike Ingram's book on the subject: link . Don't look at the recommended reading on the page. It, likewise, is total rubbish if you want to understand this battle.