Talk:Cornish rebellion of 1497
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Keskerdh Kernow 500 was nominated for deletion. The debate 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 here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.|
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)
- 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)
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 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
The battle of Black Heath
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 220.127.116.11 (talk) 08:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)