Talk:First English Civil War/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

list of English civil wars

The palementrian roylaist wars were not the first civil wars (unless im mistaken the wars of the roses was the first) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Labtech (talk • contribs) 21:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The conflict known as the English Civil War is usually broken into two or three three pieces hence first second and third civil wars. There have been lots of other English civil wars but they are traditionally known by other name (see list of English civil wars). Only the conflict between from 1642 to 1651 is known as the "English Civil War". PBS 00:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Huge sections accidentally deleted

Hi, I was editing the section on "Overview" and the whole article seems to have been deleted, except for this section. Can anyone help me revert to the LAST full version, as I have done quite a bit of editing on other sections as well. Thanking you in advance. PM Poon 05:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

As you can see I fixed your problem. It happens a lot to me because it often seems to take a long time for the template of funny characters to be retrieved and if one clicks on the button to save before the page is complete then it saves the section in place of the whole page.

As it has happened to me several times, I have worked out the best way to fix it.

1. list the history of the page click on the last complete version.
   • edit and immediately [Save page] the last complete version.
2. Open another page and list the history in it
   • edit the version of the page saved with only the section (a).
   • in the first window edit the same section in the latest saved version (b).
   • cut and past all of (a) into (b).
   • cancel (a), [Save page] (b). All done

I think you are doing sterling work on wikifying the page, but as a first step I think it would be of more use to go through the paragraphs which do not have links and create links to other wikipedia pages. I think this provides more bang for the buck than reformatting paragraphs which already contain links. I have done this for both 2nd ECW and 3rd ECW but ran out of steam on this much bigger article. PBS 10:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Parliament is a institutional noun

See American and British English differences#Slight lexical differences

A few "institutional" nouns take no definite article when a certain role is implied: for example, at sea [as a sailor], in prison [as a convict]. Among this group, Commonwealth English has in hospital [as a patient] and at university [as a student], where American English requires in the hospital and at the university.

In CE Parliament is a "institutional" noun which takes no definate article:

There was some continued organised Royalist resistance in Scotland which lasted until the surrender of Dunottar Castle to Parliament's troops

not

There was some continued organised Royalist resistance in Scotland which lasted until the surrender of Dunottar Castle to the Parliament's troops

But it would be There was some continued organised Royalist resistance in Scotland which lasted until the surrender of Dunottar Castle to the Long Parliament's troops --PBS 18:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Second use of titles

The 1911 article used titles initally and then just the name of the person. I think we should stick to that as well. At the moment due to the wikification of the article we are ending up with inconsistencies where sometimes the title is included when the person is refered to a scond time while most remain as they were in the originalarticle.

Some like the Fairfaxes of course, need some sort of qualification based on name or rank, because there are two of them, but for example The earl of Newcastle is currently inconsistent:

1. Earl of Newcastle -- with link, which is what we need
2. Earl of Newcastle -- no link
3. Newcastle
4. Lord Newcastle
5. Newcastle -- liked to Newcastle
6. Lord Newcastle's
7. Newcastle
8. Newcastle
9. Newcastle
10. Newcastle
11. Newcastle
12. Newcastle
13. Newcastle
14. Newcastle
15. Newcastle (now the Marquess of Newcastle) -- Seems OK to me as specific info and not used as a name identifier.
16. Newcastle
17. Newcastle
18. Newcastle
19. Newcastle
20. Newcastle
21. Newcastle
22. Marquis of Newcastle
23. Newcastle
24. Newcastle
25. Newcastle
26. Newcastle
27. Newcastle
28. Newcastle
29. Newcastle
30. Newcastle
31. Newcastle
32. Newcastle-on-Tyne -- to distinquish it from the man and to link directly
33. Newcastle-on-Tyne -- to distinquish it from the man

I think that in all but the first one and the last two should just be Newcastle. Newcastle is only an example, a lot of other names have the same inconsitency which I think we should fix. PBS 11:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

But if you always leave out the title it can get very confusing as to whether Lord Newcastle or Newcastle upon Tyne is being referred to (likewise with Lord Essex and the County of Essex), especially with Britannica's convoluted language. If you want consistency I'd much prefer "the Earl of Newcastle" then "Lord Newcastle" (which is the way it is in many other articles). Proteus (Talk) 12:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, in most context it is clear,an as I have said where clarity is needed it can be added. It is common in documents to define the term and then use it in shorted form. If there is a clash between two then the second reference should use a longer form to distinguish it form the latter. For example if there is confusion between man Manchester and the city then add "city of" before the city. If of course there were dozens of mentions of the city and only a couple for the man then this should be reversed. PBS 12:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Using the name gets around the problem of having to change the title when the title chages. As would happen with Newcastle. Proteus you say it is common to use a title but most military articles are not written that way, either in Wikipedia or outside. For example see Peninsular War Wellington is usually named as Wellesley throught the document, there are 2 unqualified references to Wellington, 21 Wellesley and none to the Duke of Wellington. His title is mentioned at the start and the end of the article but the general is not labled that way in the main body of the article. PBS 12:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Since both a Marquess and an Earl are referred to as "Lord Title", I don't see how we'd have to change the title upon Lord Newcastle's promotion. (Mentioning his promotion is of course essential, as otherwise someone using the article as a reference could write about "the Earl of Newcastle" doing something at a point in the war when he was actually "the Marquess of Newcastle".) As for the Peninsular War article, it's not really worthy of being an authoritative example. It calls him "Wellesley" even after his elevation to the Peerage — at that stage, either "Wellington" or "Lord Wellington" is possible, but "Wellesley" is just wrong. Proteus (Talk) 18:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Montrose and Scotland

One small change: the Campbell chief at this time was the Marquis, not Duke of Argyll.

I really don't know where to begin with this, other than to say this is possibly the worst written, most hurried and least accurate account of the campaigns of Montrose that I have ever read. Consider this for an example;

Montrose's royalism differed less from that of Englishmen of the 17th century than from that of their forefathers, under Henry VIII and Elizabeth.

I personally have not the least idea what these verbal contortions are meant to convey. There are other phrases and expressions that simply have no place in a sober historical assessment- 'romantic heroism' and 'romantic conquest' being high among the most tiresome. Sight of the real historical Montrose is almost completely lost in a confusing tangle of words and ideas.

My area of expertise is in Scottish history, so I can see just how silly and glib this article is when it touches on areas with which I am familiar; but I suspect it is also true of the treatment of the Civil War in England.

I am sorry if this sounds harsh; but if Wikipedia is to be treated as a serious research tool it needs contributions of a far higher quality than this. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to correct the wholesale misinformation the author manages to convey. Rcpaterson 01:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

see above: #Long page and tone it is the first part of the GREAT REBELLION. As to the sentence "Montrose's royalism..." means is that he was motivated to support the royalist cause for reasons that the grandfathers of his more modern minded southern allies would have understood. --PBS 17:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I must say that I think it was a mistake to cut and paste the 1911 article on here. Its information and assumptions are out of date and not particularly usefull for the modern reader in my opinion. The same is true of other 1911 cut and pasted articles by and large. Jdorney 18:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

As I did the original copy I obviously disagree with you. I have no problem understanding the style, but I agree with you on some of the prose is dated and flowery. Having said that, it is a lot better than many Wikipedia articles which have all of the style of a "horse designed by a committee". I think the GREAT REBELLION makes a good basis for the article, and as with any other article it is there to be improved. The reason I have not started to do so, as I said above, is because I think that there are many more articles which need to be written about the war and this makes a convenient article to link in those other articles. Indeed some paragraphs should be hived off into other articles (as a base for those articles) and paraphrased in this article, so that this article can be made shorter. -- so much to do so little time to do it.

I do not think that this article needs to be an analysis of events, as the article English Civil War (and others) already cover that area. What it needs to be, is a much more detailed blow by blow history of the First English Civil war than there is room for in the parent article on the English Civil War. --PBS 19:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr Shearer, I assume from your comments that you are the author, or principal author, of this piece; in which case I apologize for the bluntness of my remarks, which must have appeared woundingly direct. A lot of these Wikipedia items give me the impression of having been cut and pasted, rather than written; or, to put this another way, they read as if they had been issued by some sub-committee of the Writer's Union in Stalin's Russia. Perhaps this is an inevitable, and unfortunate, by-product of multi-editing. The sentence I quoted is just one example of bad prose. I was being mischevious; I did manage to 'deduce' the meaning, but it lacks the transparency of good English prose. How much better it would be to say Montrose's royalism was more akin to that of ages past.

But that would not allow the author to express his bias against primitive old fashioned Scotsmen, and simultaneously point out that the English were more modern (not said but implied that they still were in 1911). --PBS 09:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

However, this raises a different set of issues which touch on the accuracy of the whole piece. In general, I think you ( I say you on the assumption that you are the originating author) are far too close to the subject, so much so that you have lost a necessary sense of critical detachment. One might almost say that you had been seduced by the 'romance' of Montrose. But Montrose was a man of his times, not Sir Galahad. Far from being an uncritical royalist, he was one of the leading advocates of the 1638 National Covenant, an opponent of the Scottish bishops and a critic of the religious policies of Charles I. Indeed, right up to his execution in 1650 he maintained his adherance to the National Covenant and his distaste for the office of bishop. Had he lived, and had he been sincere in his convictions, he might well have found himself in the opposite camp from the Charles II after the Restoration. He moved away from the Covenanter camp not because of his fears of a 'Presbyterian theocracy' but because he distrusted-and resented-Argyll.

Yes, I would agree, it is no coincidence that the MacDonalds were on his side as he was fighting Argyll -- or more to the point he was on theirs, as the highland conflicts had a dynamic all their own, and like at other times (eg 1745) national politics were for many clansmen a veneer on much deeper and long running conflicts. --PBS 09:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The account of his campaigns similarly lacks critical distance, and comes nowhere near a proper understanding of the reasons for his success. To find a treatment similar to your own one would have to go right back to the ninteenth century, to the kind of hagiography associated with Mark Napier and the like. The truth is that Montrose's victories, remarkable as they were, owed more to the incompetence of his enemies than to his own innate abilities. He made too many mistakes to be considered a truly great commander. In particular, his neglect of military intelligence was notorious. Often he simply did not know where his opponents were, and he made no attempt to find out. This took him to the threshold of disaster at Fyvie, Dundee and Auldearn, and over the threshold at Philiphaugh and Carbisdale.

It is from the perspective of the C19th, as it was in a work published in 1911 the person/people writing it would have spent most of their life in the C19th. It comes across strongly in the comparisons made to more recent battles because they are all of course before WWI, and please do not say it is mine (I may be old, but I am not the author of this, just the scribe).--PBS 09:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the chief problem is that this whole article -not just the sections on Montrose-hangs together very ill, and desperately needs to be broken up into more clearly defined areas of investigation and analysis. In would, in my view, be far less confusing if the sections on Montrose were removed altogether and made the subject of a seperate article. Your own piece at least has the merit of being thorough, unlike the superficial treatment of Montrose's campaigns in the Scottish Civil War

Rcpaterson 08:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It may just be that the author knew more about certain aspects of the conflict, or liked particular characters, but I suspect that different sections were written by different people because the bias (and the quality) seems to vary depending on the section.

I do not think the article need to be broken up, it is an account of the First Civil War, (and I have already broken the original article into three). Montrose's walkabouts needs to be in this article, this is not to say that his walkabouts should not be edited for style and accuracy, as is true for the rest of the article. As I said above if some of it can be paraphrased and "main articled" to another that is fine by me. But what we can not do is make the article any bigger, because it is far too large already. --PBS 09:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Again my apologies, this time for assuming the you were the author of this piece. So it has been taken from the Encyclopedia Britannica? I suppose that explains the tone; but I am still a little surprised by the use of language: ninteenth century authors are usually much more careful over issues of grammar and meaning. I really do have to stress, though, that this is a very old fashioned treatment of the wars of Montrose, wrong in both detail and analysis. It has, at least in my view, no place in a modern encyclopedia. I could, I suppose, rewrite it; but it would require major surgery, rather than patch and repair.

I note your comments but still have serious doubts if it is right and proper to include an account of Montrose's 'walkabout' in an article on the First English Civil War, just as it would be to try to incorporate an account of the Confederate Wars in Ireland. Montrose always maintained one eye on the situation in England; but his campaign in Scotland was born out of conditions unique to that country, and most of the men in his army had very little interest in the fate of King Charles. Separate treatment would have the added merit of making this piece a little more manageable; for, as you say yourself, it is far too long.

Rcpaterson 22:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Turnham Green

This article, and also Turnham Green (Battle), state that the Royalist and Parliamentarian armies did not in fact fight at this battle - it was a stand-off. This is supported by Michael Robbins's book "Middlesex" pages 94-95, which states that the Royalist withdrawal was on 13 November 1642, not 13 October as given in this article.

However, Warwick Draper's "Chiswick" pages 66-68 and 202-207 quotes in full a contemporary source saying that Prince Rupert returned after the main withdrawal and did fight the Parliamentarians on 12 November, with the loss of 800 Royalist and 120 Parliamentarian soldiers. The source is listed in Draper's appendix as being from a contemporary pamphlet in the British Museum, with spelling modernised and 'Rupert' substituted for 'Robert'. The modernisation etc is attributed to a Mr. Whitear.

Does anyone know what is happening here? Is the pamphlet now discredited, or is it simply unsupported by other documents? The wording of the pamphlet is very partial, and I would expect exaggeration of the numbers killed, but is the battle itself imaginary? If it is discredited, perhaps a note to that effect would reassure any readers (like me) who are very far from expert in this field. Patche99z 14:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you should repost this question to the battle article which I have now moved to the standard name of Battle of Turnham Green --PBS 14:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have done so. I chose this page because it seemed more likely to be seen than the very local Turnham Green page. Patche99z 15:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

adjusted date

I adjusted the dates of the English Civil War to say it ended in 1651, not 1652, since this fits with other information in the introduction to this article (date of Third English Civil War) and the main article on the English Civil War. 203.221.126.206 14:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Foreign Views...

What did the powers of Europe think of the civil war? did any support royalist? J.W —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.178.132 (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Long page and tone

Would anyone volunteer to break some of this page up into daughter articles? This page is already about 4 times bigger than is suggested. Perhaps some of the battles could be daughter articles with just a quick mention here. Cheers. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, The tone of this article is not encyclopedic. It states that the article is based on "GREAT REBELLION", but it reads more like a magazine article than an encyclopedia one. If I have time, I'll try to look at it, but I'm no expert in the field of British history. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

If you do not think this is an encyclopaedic article then, as all but the first section is nearly a word for word copy of the first half of the GREAT REBELLION article, you presumably do not think that the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica article is encyclopaedic! I would not disagreee with you if you were to say that some of the prose are rather old fashioned and could do with updating, but it is time consuming to do this because of the need to make sure that the meaning of the text is not changed. BTW The other half of the article GREAT REBELLION is in the second and third civil wars articles. Are you aware that there are also two parent overview articles: Wars of the Three Kingdoms-->English Civil War-->First English Civil War?

I would not be against moving some of the text into daughter articles based on the battles which took place. But it is a very big project when there is so much more to do with this period for which there are no articles and I think should have a higher priority; eg an article on the English Independents, numerous biographies like Robert Overton, articles on sieges and battles mentioned in this article but with no details at all (The first one specifically mentioned in the artice is Battle of Powick Bridge), and numerous other redlinks throughout this artcle. --PBS 18:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Yikes, didn't mean to offend you. But, have you even read the whole article? It sounds like a piece of junk. A lot of colloquialisms, and it sounds like someone is giving play-by-play on a rugby or football match. For example:

Montrose did not disguise from himself the fact that there, and not in the Highlands, would the quarrel be decided. He was sanguine — in fact over-sanguine, as the event proved — as to the support, he would obtain from those who hated the kirk and its system. But he had called to his aid, the semi-barbarous Highlanders, and however much the Lowlands resented a Presbyterian inquisition, they hated and feared the Highland clans beyond all else. He was equally disappointed in his own army.

I don’t have a problem with the content (except the length of course), I have a problem with the "this happened, and then this happened, and then, surprisingly, THIS happened. Isn’t that amazing boys and girls. Read on to find out what happens to our heroes next." type attitude and tone. It sounds very unencyclopedic. And I am not saying there aren’t other topics in this era that shouldn’t be created. I am saying that this article is listed on Special:Longpages, and should really be shortened. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with Lord Voldemort's point (raised 3 years ago). The article is still unreadable due to its length. It should describe the war, not describe each battle in detail (using up to one page worth for each one). In all fairness, I have do add that I do not care enough to shorten it myself. --Xeeron (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There is already a English Civil War article and this is the first of three wars that make up the English Civil War. Yes it needs editing (mainly to update the language), but it is nowhere near describing each battle in detail. I am open to suggestions of how to divide it up further. --PBS (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll give you an example (part of the section on Battle of Edgehill):

Rupert was on the right of the King's army with the greater part of the horse; Lord Lindsey and Sir Jacob Astley in the centre with the foot, while Henry Wilmot, Earl of Rochester (with whom rode the Earl of Forth, the principal military adviser of the King) with a smaller body of cavalry, was on the left. In rear of the centre were the King and a small reserve. Essex's order was similar. Rupert charged as soon as his wing was deployed, and before the infantry of either side were ready. Taking ground to his right front and then wheeling inwards at full speed, he instantly rode down the Parliamentary horse, opposed to him. Some infantry regiments of Essex's left centre shared the same fate as their cavalry.[5]

On the other wing, Forth and Wilmot likewise swept away all that they could see of the enemy's cavalry. The undisciplined Royalists of both wings pursued the fugitives in wild disorder up to Kineton, where they were severely handled by John Hampden's infantry brigade (which was escorting the artillery and baggage of Essex's army). Rupert brought back only a few rallied squadrons to the battlefield, and in the meantime, affairs there had gone badly for the King.[5]

The right and centre of the Parliamentary foot (the left having been brought to a halt by Rupert's charge) advanced with great resolution. Being at least as ardent as, and much better armed than Lindsey's men, they engaged the latter fiercely and slowly gained ground. Only the best regiments on either side, however, maintained their order, and the decision of the infantry battle was achieved mainly by a few Parliamentary squadrons.[5]

One regiment of Essex's right wing had been the target of Wilmot's charge. The other two had been at the moment, invisible, and every Royalist troop on the ground, including the King's guards, joined in the mad ride to Kineton. This regiment, Essex's life-guard, and some troops that had rallied from the effect of Rupert's charge (amongst them, Captain Oliver Cromwell's), were the only cavalry still present. They now joined with decisive effect in the attack on the left of the royal infantry.[5]

The King's line was steadily rolled up from left to right. The Parliamentary troopers captured his guns, and regiment after regiment broke up. Charles himself stood calmly in the thick of the fight, but he had not the skill to direct it. The Royal Standard was taken and retaken; Sir Edmund Verney, the standard-bearer, was killed as was Lindsey in a separate melée. By the time that Rupert returned, both sides were incapable of further effort and disillusioned as to the prospect of ending the war at a blow, so far from settling the issue the Battle of Edgehill was to be the first of a series of pitched battles.

Nothing at all of that is important to the conduct of the war. I would completely cut it out. Only important facts which need to be mentioned (if they occur) might be: Important leaders present/killed, leaders that distinguished themselves, so that they later were given bigger command or the reverse, permanent effects on the relative strengths (e.g. one side losing its entire army). It should not take more than 1 or at most 2 sentences to describe that. --Xeeron (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, I'm going to cut out a large bunch on the "English Civil War" section since it's redundant. How do I show the final product before I actually change it? Otherwise I'll just change it. Ace blazer (talk) 08:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want others to have a look at your version first before implementing it, the best option is to copy the whole article to your userspace (e.g. User:Ace blazer/First English Civil War, change it there and link from here. A simpler idea would be to implement the changes here and immediately revert them. But usually that is only needed for very large or controversial changes. For anything else, be bold and just do it. --Xeeron (talk) 11:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the first section can be seen on my user space. Anybody is welcome to put their comments on my talk page or here i guess...Ace blazer (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

One source

I moved the template below from the article space as it is clearly a comment that should be on the talk page if anywhere. The template was placed on the article page by user:Thehelpfulone[1]

--PBS (talk) 10:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Why did you remove this template? The page DOES have only one source so it ought to be addressed on the front page. I'll personally take the time to edit this article with some BOOKS over the next month. Also, you removed the English Civil War block (by accident I'm guessing?) Ace blazer (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

"I moved the template below from the article space as it is clearly a comment that should be on the talk page if anywhere." --PBS (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That is a matter of opinion. I've seen large number of discussions about this issue but I've yet to see a finalized decision. Perhaps this should be put to an official vote so that there is some rule to stick to. Personally I don't think we should remove templates just because it will make the article look "nice". Ace blazer (talk) 03:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

There are some templates that serve two functions. They warn the readership and they inform editors. For example {{unreferenced}} provides a warning to a reader that the content of the article may not be accurate. But in the case of this template, it does not provide a warning. Instead it is a editor to editor message that a page could be improved by including more sources. If someone wrote write in plain indented text at the top of an article "This article or section relies largely or entirely upon a single source", another editor would either remove the remark or moved to the talk page with the comment in the history along the lines "Editorial comments should be placed on the talk page". Just because the text is wrapped up in a box does not make it any less an editorial comment that ought to be on the talk page. --PBS (talk) 12:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Military Conflict

First English Civil War
Part of Wars of the Three Kingdoms
Date August 22 1642 - March 13 1647 Location England, Wales Result Decisive Parliamentarian victory
Belligerents
Royalists	Parliamentarians
Commanders and leaders
Charles I of England Prince Rupert of the Rhine	Main army: Earl of Essex (until December 1644) Sir Thomas Fairfax Oliver Cromwell
Casualties and losses
180,000 people in England killed over the course of the war. 3.6% of the population. (R. Buchholz and N. Key, p.244)

I have moved the info box here for further discussion. The dates are fine. The places are not, the war also involved fighting in Scotland. Only the first clause of the result is correct. Apart from Charley the commanders is far too simple and not correct as for most of the war there were many armies. It is like trying to list all the generals of the Napoleonic wars etc. There is not source for the strengths. --PBS (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok as my first act, I'll put the box back. The English Civil War was mostly fought in England. There was a Scottish Army but they did not fight in Scotland. The conflicts in Scotland and Ireland were dealt with in 1649 which would come after the resolution of the First Civil War which was ~1646. All war pages have this box 'cause it gives a good summary. I don't see what's wrong with the commanders but people affected by the Self Denying Ordinance ought to be left out I think. Earl of Essex can be excluded since he was basically the first commander of the Parliament forces. I've made the changes here. Take a look. Also, I have a number that over 180,000 people were killed over the course of the war which is 3.6 of the population. Also 1/8 adult males saw combat and perhaps 1/3 bore arms. Ace blazer (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

And I have removed it again until we can come to an accommodation. As I said above "Apart from Charley the commanders is far too simple and not correct as for most of the war there were many armies." A simple read of this article lists far more army commanders than are listed in the box. Further you say "There was a Scottish Army but they did not fight in Scotland." What was Montrose doing and who was he fighting? --PBS (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that fall under the Wars of the Three Kingdoms? The World War II article has a whole section dedicated to commanders of Axis and Allies which then links to the box. Want to do that too? The Scottish part of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms doesn't seem to fit your requirements. Also, would the official end of the first war really be in 1647? Ace blazer (talk) 02:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that the English Civil War was not often known as the English Civil War until the Americans decided to have one of their own. But thanks to the Americans this one has become known as the English Civil War. However the affairs of Scotland are usually included in the war because despite the name the wars were intertwined and the Scots had a large influence of the course of events in both countries, through the fighting in Scotland and by going walk about in Northern England on the side of Parliament. The Encyclopaedia Britannica which is the major source for this article, side stepped this issue by calling it the "Great Rebellion" and included all three wars under that title. "people affected by the Self Denying Ordinance ought to be left out" why? --PBS (talk) 12:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The commanders is a tricky issue, because although one can state with some clarity that Charles was commander in chief, the Parliamentary side is difficult because there was a division between civilian and military leaders and the civilian leadership on the Parliamentary side was a loose collective leadership with on one civilian in charge. The articles used for WWII (eg Axis leaders of World War II ) is one way we could go. Would you be willing to write two such articles? --PBS (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think 1647 and not 1646 when the King "came to the camp of the Scottish army at Southwell on May 5, 1646." However I am happy to go with whatever date the majority of reliable sources use. The Encyclopaedia Britannica does not voice an opinion on this because as I said it places all three wars into one article.--PBS (talk) 12:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Addressing the command issue. "On 19th July, 1647 Fairfax was made Commander in Chief of all forces in England and Wales" (Commons Journals, vii, 224, Ludlow, Memoirs, i, 295, 360, 497, ed. 1894). Just a thing I copied out of a book. While it is outside the time period of the "first" war, it tells us something about the command chain and the limit of this command. I'd say that it'd be more manageable to keep it within these geographical bounds. Can we say with certainty that Charles was the Commander of the Royalist forces (even though he didn't command per se)? And Rupert was subordinate but commanded a large number of the troops. Fairfax was the definite commander of the New Model, and Earl of Essex was proclaimed commander in chief by Parliament: so he got the main army even though there were numerous other armies commanded by various persons. Cromwell would fall under the same category as Rupert, at least within this war. This is why I believe the other commanders wouldn't be notable enough to be put in the box, but they are mentioned in the article which should be good enough. WWII has those articles because of the sheer numbers of countries involved, but in this civil war there are only 2 factions with 2 "heads" in charge of the main armies; however, I wouldn't mind doing an article like that. I would start that one before I work on this one though. Ace blazer (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I changed the box again, perhaps Rupert and Cromwell shouldn't be in those boxes? It's pretty hard to figure out...

Other issues, it really is hard to judge the strengths of each army since the numbers were so inconsistent. Should it be left blank or should we put initial troops numbers with a note that they weren't fixed? I'm more in the view that this article needs to be separated from the conflicts in Scotland and Ireland, so I put the "Part of Wars of Three...". Thoughts? Ace blazer (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Take Rupert as an example. He was not in command early in the war and left in disgrace before the end. At Edgehill the man in charge was Charles, but Charles could not make mistakes he could only be badly advised, so one can argue that Robert Bertie, 1st Earl of Lindsey was the first commander of the Royalist Army or was it Patrick Ruthven, 1st Earl of Brentford? Later in the war was Rupert more of a commander than George Goring, Lord Goring or for that matter what about Henry Wilmot, 1st Earl of Rochester as commander of the kings horse when Rupert went to the North? If the Earl of Essex is in there what about the [[Edward Montagu, 2nd Earl of Manchester or any the other association (regional) commanders? After all it was not until the New model army was created that one can start to argue that there was anything like a centralised army and hence centralised command. --PBS (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If there is disagreement about part of the infobox, you should simply take that part out and leave the rest. The infobox is a useful aid to readers, even if the "commanders" section is left free. --Xeeron (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Xeeron.Ace blazer (talk) 05:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

We are having discussions about: "dates", "location", "commanders" and the "casualties". So that leaves very little for a box to contain. It is much better to have no information than to have incorrect information. --PBS (talk) 09:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The box would still contain the belligerents and who won. While it is true that no information is better than incorrect information, little information is also better than no information. --Xeeron (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

On paper, I'd still say that the only notable "commanders" of the "main" armies before the new model were those that I have stated above. Manchester, Lord Fairfax, Waller, Denbigh were all commanders of considerably large armies under parliament and Manchester even had a larger army, but Essex was proclaimed Commander-in-chief by Parliament so he commanded the "main" army. Tactically speaking the King had no say but how can he not be commander in chief? Isn't it the royal prerogative for the King to command his army? Maybe we can specify that the commanders of the Main Army were so and so like I've stated in the box. The real problem is that there was no overall war plan so the commanders didn't always tell the other armies what they were doing, but I don't believe we need to go into so much detail over a simple introductory box. Ace blazer (talk) 05:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

How are you making those judgements? George VI was commander in chief of the British armed forces during WWII but he is not normally listed. In this case the Charley should be listed, but that is not really an issue, the issue is that that below him the formal titles and the positions people held were not as clear cut as they could have been. The relative importance of a commander was dependant not only on their formal positions but also on their weight at court. Similar considerations also effect considerations of who was or was not an important commander on the Parliamentary side. --PBS (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Size of the article

If this article is to be shortened I suggest that we do it by dividing it up into campaign articles based on a years campaigning. So we have one overview article, (this one) and one each for 1642,1643 etc. This should be fairly easy to manage as during that war most fighting was conditional on the season and the article is already structured that way. But what we do not need to do is create a replica article that contains only the detail to be found in the section English Civil War#The First English Civil War --PBS (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

This page, French Revolutionary Wars, is probably the format you're thinking about? Ace blazer (talk) 02:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That or similar articles (such as the Italian Campaign (World War II) and Jan Smuts) the guideline for is is Wikipedia:Summary style. --PBS (talk) 12:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

There's also this format to consider in First Punic War which is just a bit different. In all of those the battles are given a small overview whereas in this one the Battle of Edgehill for example is way too long. My main concern is not just format but the use of only one source. Ace blazer (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the First Punic War is a good example because we already have the article English Civil War and Timeline of the English Civil War. --PBS (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the problem is I don't really know where to start. Just putting these parts into daughter articles doesn't finish it: we need to start writing summary statements. I've got a a potential one on my user page for the beginning sections. It provides much less on the details which can be seen in the main English Civil War article. Comments can be left here. Ace blazer (talk) 05:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that we take it in steps. The first is to agree the new layout in section headings how about

1 Overview
2 Royalist and Parliamentarian armies
Events of 1642
	Campaign of 1642
	Battle of Edgehill
Events of 1643
	The winter of 1642-43
	6 Plan of campaign, 1643
	7 Victories of Hopton (POV)
	8 Adwalton Moor
	9 Cromwell and the Eastern Association
	10 Siege and relief of Gloucester
	11 First Battle of Newbury
	12 Hull and Winceby
	The "Irish Cessation" and the Solemn League and Covenant
Events of 1644
	14 Newark and Cheriton (March 1644)
	15 Plans of campaign for 1644
	16 Cropredy Bridge
	17 Campaign of Marston Moor
	18 Independency
	19 Lostwithiel
	20 Operations of Essex's, Waller's and Manchester's armies
	21 Second Battle of Newbury
	22 Self-denying ordinance
Events of 1645
	23 Decline of the Royalist cause
	24 New-model ordinance
	25 Victories of Montrose
	26 Inverlochy
	27 Organisation of the New Model Army
	28 First operations of 1645
	29 Rupert's northern march
	30 Cromwell's raid
	31 Civilian strategy
	32 Charles in the Midlands
	33 Dundee
	34 Battle of Auldearn
	35 Campaign of Naseby
	36 Effects of Naseby
	37 Fairfax's western campaign
	38 Langport
	39 Schemes of Lord Digby
	40 Montrose's last victories
	41 Fall of Bristol
	42 Philiphaugh
	43 Digby's northern expedition
44 1646 end of the first war
Aftermath (New Section)
45 See also
46 References
47 Footnotes

It will need some work because the current sections do not fall neatly into years, (see for example the section "The "Irish Cessation" and the Solemn League and Covenant") but once that is done, then we can look to move the text of the years out and use the headings of the sections to write a summary of what is in the year articles. Do you have any idea on what we should call the articles on each year of the war? Perhaps "English Civil War in 1642"? --PBS (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sry guys, exam period is coming up for me so I'll be out for a couple of weeks. Ace blazer (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Cut the Scottish stuff?

Hi everyone, since we're looking at ways to shorten this article, and we definitely should be, how about cutting all the Scottish stuff? A, it was not actually part of the English civil war and B, it has its own dedicated article Scotland in the Wars of the Three Kingdoms. Excess stuff should be moved there. Also I've never been happy about the tone of this article, its kind of outdated and pov, which is not too surprising since it was lifted from 1910 Britanicca. Thoughts anyone?

Jdorney (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

If I had the time, what I would do here is write 1-2 page sized summaries for each year, put them on the page and move everything else into split-off articles either about that year or specific battles. So yes, your idea sounds good, but it should be taken further really (of course a first step is always better than talking hrmhrm, lol). --Xeeron (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well as a first step I'm removing the Scottish stuff. Re the rest, ideally, in my opinion, a wikipedia article like this one should be thematic rather than chronological.. In other words it should identify the course of events for the reader, not try to list every detail. We can use chronology pages and battle articles for that. What were the main phases of the war? Why did the royalists lose? What were the decisive events? The reader will want to know these facts above all

Jdorney (talk) 23:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Jdorney I was aware of what you had written here but I did not appreciate that you wished to move with such speed.

The problem with just removing the Scottish material is that the wars were not really independent of each other, and while I am not against in in principle, I think we should discuss each section in turn, decide if we are going to move it into another article and if we need to replace what is deleted in this article with a summary. --PBS (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW We have an overview article the English Civil War this one should in my opinion be a detailed chronology by campaigning/year. --PBS (talk) 00:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Mentioned yes, but covered in detail no. The wars were not entirely independent of each other, but were quite different in some respects. For one thing, the MacDonald/Campbell feud was perhaps the principle cause of the royalist uprising in the highlands, something that had nothing to do with England. And, as you know, Montrose's core soldiers had been sent by the Irish Confederates. But yes, I agree we should talk about summarising the deleted info.

I agree also that this page should be more detailed than the ECW page but in the nature of wikipedia it must still be an overview of sorts. Logging every incident is not the way to go in my opinion.Jdorney (talk) 09:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Lets put aside the detail issue for the moment as we are agreed that this article is too large (if not I would increase the detail :-) ). This is why I have moved the sections into years and my proposal is that we copy the information into First English Civil War, 1942, First English Civil War, 1943, and then place a main article at the top of each year. Years work well because the climate forces a yearly campaigning season on the combatants. This will allow this article to shrink to a smaller size and allow the other articles to grow (cake and eat it).

I agree with all that you have written about the Scottish war but it did have an impact on the English war. As can be seen by the politics of 47-50, that a major Scottish faction allied itself with the Roundheads had more to do with my enemy's enemy is my friend and the need for the Scottish and English Presbyterians (it is easy to imagen Presbyterians in the English Parliament saying of the New Model Army "I don't know what effect these men will have on the enemy, but by God, they terrify me.") -- the Solemn League and Covenant was expedients rather than because it was popular. But to the practical issue of the recent deletion. What do you propose to put back into the article as a summary of the sections you deleted, because the relative strength of the Scottish Royalists had a direct baring on the ability of the other Scottish factions to send men south of the border. For example, one of the sentences you deleted states "On the 6 September 1645 David Leslie had recrossed the frontier with his cavalry and some infantry he had picked up on the way through northern England. Early on the morning of the 13th he surprised Montrose at Philiphaugh near Selkirk. ..." which effects the siege of Worcester "[Rupert's" first moved to the relief of Worcester, around which place Leven's Scots, no longer having Leslie's cavalry with them to find supplies, were more occupied with plundering their immediate neighbourhood for food than with the siege works. Worcester was relieved on 1 September [1645] by the King" --PBS (talk) 10:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Admittedley this is a problem. Deleting is easy, cleaning up the remaining text is a lot more difficult. I'll have a look, but what I'm getting at is that the Scottish events should be mentioned, but not covered in depth here. We also have major work to do in re-writing some of the 1910 language. A lot of it is very dated. Jdorney (talk) 11:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Rather than pressing on into other areas (as you have been doing) can we please agree on what is to replace the Scottish sections removed. Also having deleted it do you think that any of the other article contain the deleted information to the same depth? --PBS (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Scotland in the Wars of the Three Kingdoms and the sub battle articles. These can be expanded if need be. Depth is ok to an extent. But this article has far, far too much detail. It's essentially useless for the average reader. It should be a reasonably detailed military history, yes, but giving details of every single military encounter is just not feasible. It can be a more detailed overview than the ECW article but it still must be an overview of sorts, Philip, this is my main point.Jdorney (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

British Isles?

This term is offensive to Irish people since we are not "British" or part of Britain. Could we not use an alternative? Such as Ireland and Britain. Let's reverse the topic. English people, would you like it if England was referred to as the Irish Islands? I'd think not. Can we correct this bad term with something neutral? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacsearraigBhoy (talk • contribs) 00:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed for years. I think the answer is 'it all depends'. See Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples. --Dougweller (talk) 10:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Changed it to "England and Wales" as the wars in Ireland and Scotland are in other articles and although related are not part of this article. -- PBS (talk) 13:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Terminology

"It is common to classify the English Civil War into three parts:

       * The First English Civil War of 1642–1646,
       * The Second English Civil War of 1648–1649,
       * The Third English Civil War of 1649–1651."

Is it? This is the first I've heard of it. It may well be common practice among historians of this period to divide things up this way, but the only way I've ever heard it referred to is just "the English Civil War". Maybe "It is common, among historians, to classify..." would be better. As the article itself says earlier in that paragraph, ""The English Civil War" (1642–51), is a generic name for the civil wars in England and the Scottish Civil War..."

WikiReaderer 15:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree, there needs to be some kind of upfront summary of the reason why it is considered to be three separate wars.122.106.205.74 (talk) 03:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Aftermath ?

This section is rather unsatisfactory. How exactly did this "first" civil war end ? What stopped the war, only to resume again ( apparently ) two years later ? Was their some kind of agreement, truce, or concession of defeat ? Some clarification of this is needed.Eregli bob (talk) 07:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the previous section First English Civil War#1646: end of the war? Without a field army the Kings cause was lost. The aftermath section describes why the Second Civil War took place but you can also read the Overview to the Second English Civil War and the overview article English Civil War. Or you can consider Winston Churchill summary:

The Story of the Second English Civil War is short and simple. King, Lords and Commons, landlords, merchants, the City and the countryside, bishops and presbyters, the Scottish army, the Welsh people, and the English Fleet, all now turned against the New Model Army. The Army beat the lot!

There are lots of books that go into detail of why the second civil war happened, but I think the aftermath is a reasonable summary. -- PBS (talk) 10:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I read the whole thing, and its still not all that clear. The King's supporters lost the "first" war, so what happened then ? Who "won" ? An unconditional surrender ? If so, why wasn't the King deposed and executed right away. Some kind of truce which broke down two years later ? Some kind of Mexican standoff between the other parties ? If no event "ended" the first war, if there was no resolution of the issues, and they just got sick of fighting for a bit, and then started fighting over the same issues 2 years later, then it really looks like one war with a hiatus and not two or three separate wars.Eregli bob (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

'Parliaments of England and Scotland'

Isn't that misleading? when did the Parliament of Scotland become involved? It was the Scottish Covenanters, not Scottish parliament — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben200 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

See

Articles of the Treaty agreed upon betwixt the Commissioners of both Houses of the Parliament of England, having Power and Commission from the said Honourable Houses, and the Commissioners of the Convention of the Estates of the Kingdom of Scotland authorized by the Committee of the said Estates, concerning the Solemn League and Covenant, and the Assistance demanded in Pursuance of the Ends expressed in the same.

— ("Message to the H. C. that the Lords agree to the following Treaties. Articles of Agreement between the Commissioners of the Two Houses of Parliament of England, and the Commissioners of the Convention of Estates of Scotland.". House of Lords Journal Volume 6: 3 January 1644. Institute of Historical Research. 1767-1830. Retrieved 06 April 2012. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help))

To be a treaty it had to be between two bodies representing the sovereign (even though they were both at war with other men advising the "ill-advised" monarch), hence the Solom League and Covenant was a treaty between the English parliament and the "Convention of the Estates of the Kingdom of Scotland" commonly known as the Scottish Parliament. -- PBS (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I still think it is highly misleading because the conflict stemmed from a constitutional dispute between the English parliament and King, the Scottish parliament had little if anything to do with it. The dispute in Scotland which led to their involvement was to do with a religious group, not Parliament Ben200 (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)