 Okay, well first of all very quick introduction as you already know my name is Chris King. I am one of the PhD students at the University of Birmingham, John Carmon is my supervisor and one of my colleagues in the form of Phil Today within my within this presentation I hope to show you a little bit of the study I've been doing into battlefield landscapes and the relative significance of battlefield landscape features to give an armies, but also hopefully trying to broach the Excuse me the broach the theory so the theoretical idea that we should be looking at the distinct approaches to the utilization or not Utilization of given landscape features within battlefields So first of all How do I decide how does one decide to look at which at what features the latin conflict landscape? And we know from this point has been extensive That's as an answer to features across different battlefields different time periods This is from a military history point of view a complex archaeology point of view military theory point of view all of these different points of Views effect to become forward to gather themes about how one either should or how what how we think people used a landscape when it came to battlefields and these These what we've got these all together and actually these can then be analyzed compared to the The information in the archaeological record and compare to other sources as well This Currently for what I've been not only from this conference bill from my other contacts as well as there is an increasing Interest in analysis across sites are applying theoretical models just not not so single sites Not to single battlefields, but to battlefields within whole given time periods using armies of armies of a similar type and effective this this I feel would be is a vital step within conflict archaeology to be expected to expand our horizons effectively As I said this presentation does illustrate finding from my own research. I should be handing in pretty soon. That's the aim and As I've been always well this does it my reasons focus on how military forces in the past interact with the landscape around them with specific focus on Anything interesting unusual not logical or strange in terms of why or how they use the landscape So how do you set the features so a landscape feature as far as my concern within my own study? I've split into two different types of feature you have physical or natural features in the form of rivers hills forests And then you have anthropogenic ones once I've been made by humans settlements roads religious buildings Actually the built landscape any one of these I found within my own existing research Any of these can have an effect on where the battlefield happens within the landscape However, as far as I'm concerned the from what my own research has suggested these are not necessarily universally applied and these are not necessarily universally Utilized either just because there happens to be a river and a hill and a forest does not mean that you're going to use all of them equally and all any of them in fact and Very very very brief outline of the tool sets. I'm using geographic and mesh systems GIS I'm sure a lot of people in this room are relatively familiar but to keep everyone on the same page I'm using it as a tool for highlighting the spatial relationship between the battlefield and the landscape features So effectively highlighting features within the landscape and therefore you can do Spatial analysis on these features once they've been identified. How far are you from a given feature? Can you see a given feature? Can you see a feature from another feature? Any anything like that can be done within the joy of space? It's done by layering Data on top of the other want all the data on top of each other effectively contextualizing data with additional data to make to answer to answer questions And again, what just said right What I did what I did within my study effective is I highlight the situations where a landscape feature is a prominent part of the Battlefield and the reason I did this of course is to try and isolate the situations where it's more likely a landscape feature is going to be utilised so therefore means that we can analyze use me You can better analyze How a force or how a how a group of forces react to a landscape feature if you know that there's a prominent landscape feature on that That looks like so in this case with extreme spatial relationship Either you're particularly close or you're particularly far from a given landscape feature and this also means that once this once this Has been to what all these landscapes have been selected I can then compare this relationship across different time periods using different battles as I was using different Yeah, different battles different groups of people as well and these individual examples come together to form case studies I will make at this point that the case studies You're about to see are also based on low resolution results from across all of the area of modern England and Wales as well so I haven't just been doing this during my PhD and It's a she's analyzed special issues are highlighted by the previous themes in in archaeology in military history in military theory and so on and In addition, I do actually visit these battlefields as well So there's a lot of confused looks in the audience. So don't worry. I do actually go to these places but the the reason why I do this it's to Inform the data-led analysis with my own observations on the landscape And I think that's quite an important part to actually understand If you're trying to see from the point of view of those people who are fighting in the landscape Utilizing the landscape try and see it from their own point of view. So the for your For the purposes of this the lack the selected landscape feature of chosen is from my research is a river I'm choosing the ones that are incredibly close to rivers And the two case studies I'm choosing is one which is the battle of Blaw Heath Which is from the walls of the roses when England is about the 15th century and the other one is from the Civil war or to call it's probably in the four of the three kingdoms In the 17th century So very so to go through these ones as an example Hopefully give an idea of how I look at these battlefields and How the differences of how people approach landscape features is quite an important factor to be looking at within battlefield analysis. So I Said well poses the Lancasterians ie the red ones No guys there they arrived first they set up first They waited for a good couple of hours. Well, these while these guys arrived. These are the Yorkists another faction within the war The river is this feature here down the center. It's quite steep sided It's very prominent part of the battlefield. The Lancashions were forced across the river as part of the battle and the Lancaster is lost That's the important part to point out at this point So from my own research from the spatial analysis, what does it what does it suggest? First of all the both armies have been visible to each other incidentally I do have all the slides showing all these bits of data. I don't want to bore you silly So if you really want to see it later, I can show you all these bits are all these bits of data I have with me now So both armies definitely be visible to each other The river area is incredibly steep. This is taken not only from the giant experience But also from my own experience of actually visiting the battlefield. It wouldn't be easy to cross by any stretch to the imagination The modern road makes it considerably easier to cross this across this river feature, but there wasn't necessarily that time While the entire area does slope towards the river It is noticeably flatter both from being there and within the GIS analysis Well that it's flattened the surround of the area that surrounds the battlefield as well also the missile weapons as we can tell from usable both sides if we Based them on the on the positions as shown in the map previously the range of the missile weapons barely reaches the river and Also, they didn't think about shooting it over the river either And also that the armies did not nearly take up a large amount of space based on the currently estimated numbers and using my own analysis of estimating size within the battlefield area as well Definitely affected the movement through the battles for the battlefield, right? So in terms of utilization of the landscape feature and the interaction directly with it The initial force Lancashion seemed to move to the river as defensive boundary initially However, they were aiming to pursue the Yorkists So they effectively hobbled themselves by turning up and standing on one side of the river They sat there and let Yorkists set up the Yorkists We're setting up for at least an hour for us I would tell from the eye witness reports and from there and from other secondary source material as well So they didn't cross the river that you left them to fortify their position They left them to set everything up and effectively what the Lancashions did by if they selected that landscape feature They gave the benefit to their enemy Also, the Yorkists didn't bother using any missile weapons that because we know they had access to primitive artillery and Arrows lots of them. They didn't use them at all until the Lancashions were already crossing the river So we can definitely say that there was extreme relationship There's a lot of this feature had extreme relationship with a battlefield was utilized by one or more of the forces Definitely, however, the means at which it was utilized. I Cannot I would definitely say at this point. It's not necessarily a logical way. There's no That is there's nothing but there's nothing in all the research I've seen there's nothing to suggest that one would turn up to a battlefield put yourself on the other side of the river And then so oh Oh, we have to jump over the river to chase our enemy. So there's no there's no logic there That's all this of course may partially worse by the insistence of the Lancashions use cavalry to attack across the river first Yes, I've been there cavalry would not like that river Also demonstrate as far as I can send the importance of analyzing the battle from the perspective of those who fought There must have been a reason why this was why this seemed like the right idea at the time or Maybe no one thought about it at all. Maybe this was just there on the other side. They're just over there Well, ignore the river is no it was no obstacle to us either way This is a vital part that you have to consider when looking at battlefields going to my other Is our battle of Langport this is from the Civil War the war of the three kingdoms royalists this force here Arrived first and fortified the river the parliamentarians the significantly larger blob arrived second And the river the river as you see runs through the center of the center of the battlefield Parliamentary has tapped across the river and the parliamentarians won What can my research say about this? Again, both eyes were visible the river area is accessible across most of its length. It's not very steep So anyone could have jumped across the river and also the range weapons could easily a fire across the river However, the majority of weapons could only hit from the starting positions The space the answer is very large only just fitting inside the registered battlefield area suggested by the battlefield trust that historic england There we go Oh apparently that's all my research says which is wrong Well, what the rest what the rest of the slide would say is that the is effectively that even though Yes, well I can go with this one even though they seem to do the was a defensive boundary initially Despite having large amounts artillery on both sides and we know the parliamentarians definitely had an advantage of artillery because they were able to fire on the parliamentarian positions they still insisted on going across the river and Force and forcing their way across the other side of the river with cavalry again So obviously there's very much a so very much a drive to use cavalry even though cavalry is not necessarily needed Thus we can say this feature had an extreme relationship with the back of field It's like one more forces The force did utilize this landscape feature in a very logical way. However, well, that's a very logical way in a logical way However, still with this in mind Cavalry still played a major role in taking the river crossing even though it wasn't needed And it highlights that even when forces apply wildly accepted logic to utilization landscape features There are still elements distinct of the time period. Why would what's the point of all this? What advances does this give? It highlights the Need to understand the given period's distinct approach to warfare distinct approach to seeing the landscape and utilizing troops within that landscape Not just because of technology not just because of access to different troop types But also because mentality and approach to warfare can be different and understanding that that is a that is the case Um, there is front end within conflict Within the studies of conflict is to focus on individual individual studies in individual battlefields It's by no means a universal trend, but it is quite a lot a large trend And it's effectively tries to pull that apart slightly and spread that to different conflict sites It's different conflict sites and across Um across a whole time period if possible Also understanding Then are also noting that the approach to the use of the landscape feature and these in least within these two case studies Does appear to be different Which suggests therefore that the approaches to the utilization or not utilization of landscape features between different time periods and between different Between different groups of people does change whether that's whether that's because of you know, the weather the sun the fact that one of them Prayed that morning and one and isn't we don't we don't know but it's important to remember Put to take that into account when looking at a battlefield and it's important to then Incorporate that into the understanding of the narrative Also, for example, as shown by my colleague, um Ellie's presentation It's also useful when applied to battles. We know a little about them because we don't know necessarily the um We don't know anything about what what they're what the opportunities they had to take a certain past the battlefield whether they saw some path path would be more defensive or not, but utilizing this um data-led approach Combined with other approach would combine with other disciplines and with other approaches as well It's very important to try and understand the full narrative Even simply knowing just how much room soldiers take up on the battlefield Which I've done through my own research versus my masters and my phd in terms of looking at that It's even just that little thing. It's quite important understanding just how they saw the landscape so Don't I'm wrapping it up. Don't worry um What can we say what can we say about this and what's thinking adds to it? so this study Find the essential stuff adds to the field of conflict studies by providing empirical data on elements within conflict landscape I choose to interpret the this data Based on my own knowledge on my own research the data that can be provided by this approach and by the approaches like it Um is entirely is entirely empirical So we can interpret from it what we can but it's important to take this nonetheless take it into account This can later better interpretate on the actions within a given battle and also forces how forces interacted with the wider conflict landscape This is not only features potentially also roads other forces Other features in the landscape that we may not have been considered part of the battle such as religious buildings Or the assessment being within three miles of you something we were not noticing So to be out of the battlefield space, but nonetheless will be taken into account by those taking part And studying error such as this highlights the links between conflict and the inherit social societal groups involved because fundamentally We are dealing with people We are not dealing with people We're not dealing with just agents within a simulation who who fundamentally are controlled and programmed by us These are people with their own thoughts feelings phobia of hills you never know so Thank you. Thank you very much and special thanks of course to John as my supervisor and Phil for having run this week. Thank you very much