Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Worcester

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page One

[edit]

... What?

[edit]

This line is just... incomprehensible. I don't even know what the person who wrote this was getting at, so I don't want to edit it and ruin the meaning.

"The military quality of the Welsh border Royalists was well proved, that of the Gloucestershire Presbyterians not less so, and, based on Gloucester and Worcester as his father had been based on Oxford, Charles II. hoped, not unnaturally, to deal with an Independent minority more effectually than Charles I. had done with a Parliamentary majority of the people of England."

From what it looks like, it may supposed to all be one sentence, but not only does that not help understand it, but it makes it one heck of a run-on sentence. Could anyone decipher this for me? 74.47.41.250 (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The military quality of the Welsh border Royalists and the Gloucestershire Presbyterians was well proved, and Charles II. hoped, not unnaturally, to deal with an Independent minority from his base in Gloucester and Worcester more effectually than Charles I. had done with a Parliamentary majority of the people of England from his base in Oxford." 81.151.28.43 (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Thomas Urquhart

[edit]

Is Sir Thomas Urquhart important enough that his participation in the battle, and his misfortunes afterward, should be mentioned here, do y'all reckon? --Jim Henry (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs citations

[edit]

For B-class, the minimum citation / referencing density is one ref per paragraph. On that basis, this currently fails B-class.  Roger Davies talk 06:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Adams on the Battle of Worcester

[edit]

This is covered in some detail in the article on Fort Royal Hill. Does it need repeating here? 81.151.28.43 (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles II or Charles Stuart

[edit]

I have renamed Charles II as "Charles Stuart" in most contexts in the article, essentially to be neutral, but of course to be more accurate historically and consistent in Style. So for example the article refers to "Cromwell's forces, never "Oliver's Forces", so I've taken out references to "Charles" and generally inserted "Stuart" to be consistent. The rationale is that at the time England was Republic, and so he did not become Charles II until the Restoration o Counter Revolution if you prefer! However of course the historical context is more complex- there is a point of view that he had become King by the time his father's head had touched the bottom of the basket- and indeed in Scotland he was declared Charles II, and of course was recognised as Charles II by English Royalists. So where the article refers to forces loyal to Charles II- I have kept Charles II (rather than use Charles Stuart) since those forces did recognise him as King. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.98.18.85 (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the changes. Cromwell was not then Lord Protector, and even when he was many historians do not refer to him as Oliver (as is commonly done with Napoleon) . The usage of Charles is the common usage in reliable sources and in other media for example SO8554: Plaque on King Charles House, Worcester -- PBS (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battle box Result

[edit]

I do not agree with the addition of "Escape of Charles II" to the result= parameter in the battle box.[1] As user:TRAJAN 117 has added it at least twice. I guess we need to see what the consensus her on the talk page is for this addition. -- PBS (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battle-hardened Scottish highlanders

[edit]

I have removed the reference to 'battle-hardened Scottish highlanders' holding Powick Bridge, the reference serves no purpose beyond the usual Scottish nationalist conceits - as explained elsewhere in the article, the Royalist army was principally Scottish and, after a decade of Civil War, there were a large proportion of battle-hardened soldiers on both sides. If we're going to talk about battle-hardened troops, why not talk about the battle-hardened Essex Militia who thrashed the Scots off Fort Royal Hill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.153.135 (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A shameful defamation of these bewoaded alpha male bravehearts. Your implication that English soldiers of this or any other era could be anything other than sadistic cowards is problematic to say the least, as is your suggestion that they could have inflicted a defeat of any kind on these brave Celtic supermen.Shiresman (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As per 81.152.153.135|81.152.153.135 above I have removed the reintroduction of 'battle-hardened Scottish highlanders' - the fact that there's a citation for this doesn't undermine the points made above - the reference is pursuing an agenda, it is not pertinent to the description of the battle because the armies on both sides were battle-hardened. There's little doubt the Scottish Highlanders had a reputation for tenacity on the battlefield during the Civil Wars (see for example the 2006 lecture by Gerry Douds to the Battle of Worcester Society 'Defeat Not Dishonour: Scots at Worcester 1651' in 'The Battle of Worcester 1651: A Collection of Essays on the History of the Battle of Worcester 1651' published by the Battle of Worcester Society (ISBN-10: 0957242115) in 2012), but why should they get singled out for particular mention? A quick browse through the above volume and Malcolm Atkin (2008) 'Worcester 1651', Barnsley: Pen & Sword - a work which might reasonably be described as as definitive as we currently have on the battle, makes it clear that the armies on both sides were highly experienced and capable at this point (we only get as far as page 22 of Atkin's work before we find a reference to the ranks of the English county militias being 'swelled by battle-hardened veterans' from the English New Model Army). I could go through this entire Wikipedia article putting words to the effect of 'battle-hardened', 'hoary warriors' or 'veteran pikewielders' in front of every reference to an English unit at the battle and find a far better published reference for each instance than the 100-year old work of a pioneering local historian, but Wikipedia shouldn't be being used for pursuing agendas based on nationalist conceits or condescending stereotyping - this kind of behaviour stinks, the reference to 'battle-hardened Scottish highlanders' should be removed and stay removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.18.241 (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a blockable offence to use sockpuppets in such a way as to pretend there is a consensus for a point of view The two IP addresses ( who is 81.152.153.135, whois 86.149.18.241) both use the same regional network (Access Serving Node) [AS2856]. It may just be a coincidence, but it seems to me the sentence construction of the two posts are similar -- but whether or not 81.152.153.135 and 86.149.18.241 are one and the same editor, I strongly suggest that you (86.149.18.241) create an account so that such worries can be put to one side.
Judging the motives of other editors with comment like "this kind of behaviour stinks" shows a total disregard for Assume good faith, particularly when you have been reverting to a preferred version without discussing it on this talk page.
About one thousand of the eight thousand prisoners shipped to the colonies after the battle were English which rather undermines the theory that it was simply an English verses Scottish fight.
Like all armies the troops available to the commanders were not all of the same calibre. For example not all the English soldiers were as competent or as brave as those 18 that Battle of Upton crossed Upton Bridge fought their way into the church in Upton. So the disposition of the best regiments was an important part of the battle. "but why should [the Highlanders] get singled out for particular mention?" The mention of the Highlanders explains in part why the Parliamentarians miscalculated the force needed to achieve their initial objective with the attack across Powick Bridge, and explains why Cromwell had to reinforce that attack at the expense of weakening his forces on the east bank of the Severn which lead to a sally against that front when it was weakened. Therefore "it is not pertinent to the description of the battle". That they were Highlanders is not really the issue, that they were battle hardened troops and their resistance so affective that they altered Parliamentary plans is. As to the point about other forces and their abilities see the sentence "The Parliamentary militia were sent home within a week. Cromwell, who had ridiculed "such stuff" six months ago, knew them better now. ..."
Now that I have explained the reason why that sentence is important to explaining part of the the course of the battle, I an going to reinsert it. If you wish to remove it then please show here on this talk page that you have a consensus to do so. -- PBS (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about a compromise - since the Royalists at the bridge put up a determined resistance they were self evidently "battle hardened" men to some degree, why not transfer the epithet to them as a whole? That is:

"...stubborn resistance by the battle-hardened Royalists (many of whom were Scottish Highlanders) commanded by Colonel Keith."

Urselius (talk) 07:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some sources that give more details:Parliamentary primary source, Parliamentary primary source, Scottish Regiments at the Battle of Worcester (unreliable source?) Gardiner's brief account,English Heritage (p. 5) Battle field trust 1st secondary 2nd secondary 3rd secondary
Major-General Robert Montgomery, Colonel George Keith and Colonel Piscotty (or Piscottie and in some sources his rank is given as Major-General). To regiments are named by their Colonel's name Keith's regiment (Infantry from Aberdeenshire - Banffshire) around Powick and Piscotty's 300 Highlanders to the west at Temesmouth (the confluence of the Teme with the Severn) There were other Socttish regiments there because cavalery are mentioned and there were probably more infantry, but in these accounts their colonels do not seem to be named.
It seems that initial attack by Colonel Richard Deane Parliamentarians failed to gain a secure bridgehead in Powick, but John Lambert's troops crossed the boat bridge over the Teme but failed to advance due to Piscotty's 300 Highlanders fighting from behind hedgerows. At this point Cromwell led an assault over the second bridge from the east side of the Severn. These reinforcements with Lambert's troopers forces the Highlanders back hedge by hedge until they broke. Meanwhile the royalist defenders of Powick were loosing ground and with their officers wounded were in danger of being outflanked so they retreated to St. Johns Bridge and into the city. In assisting Lambert's troopers Cromwell had weakened his force on the eastern bank of the Severn, Charles and his staff from Worcester Cathedral tower spotted an opportunity to attack the weakened Parliamentarians on the south east bank of the Severn and sallied out from the Sidbury Gate. If those three hundred Highlanders had broken against Ludlow's superior numbers then Cromwell would not have had to waken his eastern flank.
Slightly off topic: Charles's chances of turning the battle with this sally to the south east were slight, but they were defiantly decreased (probably to none) by the lack support given by Leslie's cavalry stationed to the north of the city. That is one of the big unanswered questions of the battle why did David Leslie (on of the most experienced officers to fight in the War of the Three Kingdoms) who had march 100s of miles into hostile territory, not engage the squadrons under his command in the battle (on either of the southern front) when the chances of escape if the battle were lost were next to none? -- PBS (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was the delay "fatal"

[edit]

I reverted the change: Charles I "was deposed and executed". Back to "was executed". AfAICT the bill to abolish the monarchy was passed after his execution and only applied to England and Ireland (Act abolishing the Office of King, 17 March, 1649).

The second change was an inline comment which I am moving here for further discussion:

"hunh? how was the delay 'fatal' if the 'same result' would have occurred with the other choice?" (user: Piledhigheranddeeper).

The wording is a direct copy from EB1911 "Great Rebellion" article. I think what the author meant was that Charles realised that the game was up as the North had not greed him with open arms and flocked to his banner -- rather most of the English saw him commanding a Scottish army not a Royalist one -- His only slim hope was that by going west he could gather support from the Marshes and Wales, because to carry on straight to London was certain defeat. The Worcester option also proved fatal because few Royalist from the Midlands or Wales came to join him (A Scottish army had been in Worcestershire in 1645 during the First Civil War and had inured themselves with the locals (Willis-Bund, 1905, p. 177)). By going Worcester Charles was following up a slim chance that more men, particularly those from Wales would come and join his army, they did not so he went down to inevitable defeat. However if he had continued straight to London which has his only other option, he would have had even less chance of victory as for certain none would have to his aid and he would have been engaged and defeated a few days earlier. -- PBS (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New image

[edit]

You might want to use this new image - it's 17th century, but not as dynamic as the 19th century image on this page now. - PKM (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cromwell after the battle

[edit]

I have moved these two sentences here:

After the battle, Cromwell returned to Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, one of the parliamentarian strongholds and close to the seat of his late cousin the civil war hero John Hampden. He stayed at the aptly named King's Head Inn, Aylesbury and it was here that he received the thanks of Parliament for his final defeat of the Royalists.[citation needed]

because a citation has been requested since August 2010, and although I can find lots of citations to says that Cromwell visited King's Head Inn, Aylesbury, I could not find one that states he was there after the battle or that he received the thanks of Parliament while lodged there. I would have thought that if this was true the owners the National Trust would mention it on their website https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/kings-head/. If verifiable it is a nice detail as it balances the Charles's escape, but it needs a reliable source to back it up. -- PBS (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of Worcester. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 22:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Another 1,200 "Scotch prisoners" were taken to Westminster as a public exhibit and systematically starved to death in Tothill Fields

[edit]

Can't find a source for the public exhibit and going by "Westminster 1640–60: A royal city in a time of revolution" it appears the deaths were due to a mix of hunger, exposure and living in a 17th century prisoner of war camp with 1000+ other people. Doesn't appear to have been systematic with nominal aid from the parish authorities and perhaps rather less nominal aid from people living in the area.©Geni (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just instantly remove this if unsourced. Highly typical for these kinds of articles, sadly.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Worcester&oldid=1206187501"