Talk:Cornish rebellion of 1497

Cornwall Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cornwall, an attempt to improve and expand Wikipedia coverage of Cornwall and all things Cornish. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.CornwallWikipedia:WikiProject CornwallTemplate:WikiProject CornwallCornwall-related articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

See drop-down box for suggested article edit guidelines:

Be bold - if you know something about Cornwall then put it in! We value your contributions and don't be afraid if your spelling isn't great as there are plenty of spelling and grammar experts on clean-up duty!
Articles on settlements in Cornwall should be written using the standard set of headings approved by the UK geography WikiProject's guideline How to write about settlements.
At WikiProject Cornwall we subscribe to the policies laid down by Wikipedia - particularly civility and consensus building. We are aware that the wording on Cornish entries can sometimes be a contentious topic, especially those concerning geography. You don't have to agree with everything but there is no excuse for rudeness and these things are best solved through consensus building and compromise. For more information see WP:CornwallGuideline.
These pages are not platforms for political discussion. Issues relating to Cornish politics should be restricted to those pages that directly deal with these issues (such as Constitutional status of Cornwall, Cornish nationalism, etc) and should not overflow into other articles.
Most of all have fun editing - that's the reason we all do this, right?!

Military history: British / European / Medieval Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Keskerdh Kernow 500 was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 12 August 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Cornish rebellion of 1497. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Merge[edit]

It seems like the Battle and the Rebellion are essentially the same thing. It would make a lot more sense to have the background context of the rebellion in the same article as the battle, rather having separate articles and "see also's", it's more than an "also", it's basically repeated material across two articles. -- Stbalbach 15:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed the proposed merge as there was no comment on either of the two pages. I've removed the duplicated material, and tried to correlate the two articles are they didn't always agree on dates and figures. I've also removed a lot of off topic links about the current politics of Cornwall, these should be placed on pages like Constitutional status of Cornwall and Cornish self-government movement. I still think that it needs to be properly referenced, but that could probably be done reasonably using the external links provided. Mammal4 10:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bold text

Tone[edit]

This article reads like a romance novel, the "humble" blacksmith (subjective and unsourced adjective), "without slaughter" (oh except for that tax guy of course, but we will gloss over that). It also seems excessively sympathetic to the Cornish, even given I am not a fan of England's history. I had to give up reading because I kept expecting Mel Gibson dressed as William Wallace to jump out of the page at me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.162.220 (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, agreed. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The battle of Black Heath[edit]

I must note that I've tried to read the passage of the battle and it's written not well at all. One who doesn't know the course of the battle and the development of the battle will not understand nothing from what is written.

"The Royal forces were divided into three 'battles', two under Lords Oxford, Essex and Suffolk, to wheel round the right flank and rear of enemy whilst the third waited in reserve. When the Cornish were duly surrounded..." The one who wrote it should know that one who doesn't speak eanglish daily and engleash slang will not understnad what he means by writing: "to wheel round the right flank and rear".

"the Cornish had placed a body of archers (utilising arrows a full yard long, 'so strong and mighty a bow the Cornishmen were said to draw') to block the passage ..." - the sentance in the bracket is completely unclear, I assume it's a cite but why you write it without explaining, this is not a kind of english I read everyday...

"Here Daubeney had a hot time of it before his spearmen eventually captured the crossing with some losses" - what is this? what's the meaning of "Here Daubeney had a hot time of it before" - do you realy expect that everyone should know what it means?

"Through ill-advice or inexperience, the Cornish had neglected to provide support for the men at Deptford Strand bridge and the main array stood well back into the heath" - you wrote that - "the Cornish had neglected to" - from where??? I understand they went to the bridge to help the Cornish force that was there, but from where- from blackheath? and I understand from the reading the sentance that is PART of the Cornish force, it would make it easier if you would write it.

"and the main array stood well back into the heath" - so the main force stayed in it's position in BLACKHEATH "stood well back" is unnecessary....

"This was a mistake since a reserve force charging down from the high ground might have held the bridge bottleneck and made the day a far more equal contest. As it was, Lord Daubeney and his troops " - this sentance doen't explain in anyway the previous sentance since both this one and the previous one are not written well and are hard to read and understand clearly.

This article gave me a headache.... since I spent a lot of time to understand the logic between the sentances which are not following of each other - this article is not supposed to be read by people who doesn't have a background for this topic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.168.95 (talk) 08:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True the language might be unnecessarily difficult for some readers. Perhaps more importantly this passage appears to have been plagiarised. See [[1]]. I suggest the section should be re-written. The best account of the battle that I see is in A.L.Rowse's Tudor Cornwall (1941), available in the Open Library. Mrmedley (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have now rewritten much of the article. Besides removing the plagiarism, I hope this has made the language clearer. Mrmedley (talk) 12:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cornish rebellion of 1497. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060515002733/http://homepages.tesco.net/~k.wasley/Blackheath.htm to http://homepages.tesco.net/~k.wasley/Blackheath.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sale of captives: ransom or slavery?[edit]

Hall's Chronicle (Kingsford p.215) says that, on the Monday after the battle, everyone who had taken a prisoner or prisoners was told to bring them out to have them "Restored or else competent Reward for them", and that afterwards many prisoners were "Sold" for 12d or more. I don't fully understand the nature of these transactions. Are we talking ransoms or slavery or both? Is there a reference or link one could include for this kind of transaction in general, especially as practised in England at this time? Mrmedley (talk) 04:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]