Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Piercebridge

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Piercebridge[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Harrias (talk)

Battle of Piercebridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Okay, it has been a little while since I've been here. The Battle of Piercebridge was a relatively minor skirmish near the start of the First English Civil War. The Parliamentarians futilely tried to prevent the Earl of Newcastle bringing his army of 6,000 men into Yorkshire. Faced with a defence of 580 men, the van of Newcastle's army made an assault supported by 10 artillery pieces. Within a few hours, the Parliamentarians had retreated back towards Yorkshire, and Newcastle was able to continue his march, and give the Royalists a numerical advantage in the county that lasted for eighteen months. As ever, all input appreciated. Harrias talk 15:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

All images free (t · c) buidhe 13:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Hog Farm[edit]

  • Link dragoon in the lead, it's not a term overly familiar today
  • Shouldn't the caption in the infobox have "16th-century" not "16th century", or is that an engvar thing?
  • My experience with writing battle articles is limited to the American Civil War and the War of 1812, but I've always included the strength of the two forces in the infobox. Is there a reason it's left out here?
  • Yes, because we only know the numbers for the Parliamentarians. Although Newcastle had around 6,000 men, he only committed the vanguard to this assault. Described as a regiment each of dragoons and foot we could be looking at anything from around 800 to 2,000. With such uncertainty, I don't think it would be beneficial for the reader to have this included. I'm considering adding an Opposing forces section which might help to expand on this a little. Harrias talk 15:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider linking the North Sea. Sadly, as an American, I don't think the location of this body of water was ever mentioned by the local public schools, and I'd say lack of knowledge of European geography is common across the pond.
  • Is there a way to make it more obvious that Captain John Hotham and Sir John Hotham are not the same person? I had to delve into the links to determine this.
  • I have added a bit into the Background that hopefully helps with this: "Although it was signed by twelve prominent leaders, neither the Hothams (Sir John Hotham and his son, Captain John Hotham) nor Cumberland.." Harrias talk 15:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use both "The Battlefields Trust" and "the Battlefields Trust"; keep the capitalization consistent
  • The description of the battle itself is very brief. Is there any further detail that can be added?
  • I personally think a brief statement about any preservation of the site, or relevant remains, is relevant to the article. The Battlefields Trust page seems to indicate that traces of earthworks may still be present.

That's all I've got. Hog Farm Bacon 04:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to some, two left which I will address in the article. Harrias talk 15:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: I have responded to each of your points above. I have also added an Opposing forces section; can you take a look over this, and let me know how it is, and whether you think it adds to the article? Harrias talk 21:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: - Consider linking companies to Company (military unit), but other than that it looks great. At least to me, the new section helps my understanding of the organization of the two forces, which is much clearer with that material in there. Hog Farm Bacon 21:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Good spot, linked. Anything else? Harrias talk 22:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I feel ready to support this one. Hog Farm Bacon 22:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

  • Earwig brings up no COPYVIO of online material, assuming good faith on close paraphrasing of offline sources.
  • Looks like Newman is probably reliable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, a doctoral thesis at a major, well-respected university. It's used sparingly, which is probably best.

Spot checks:

  • "The royalist advance guard of foot and dragoons assaulted the bridge and Colonel Thomas Howard, leading his dragoons, was killed in the action" - Is what the Battlefields Trust presents. To me, this doesn't quite indicate the same thing as the dragoons first and then the infantry, which is what's stated in the article. If I'm misinterpreting something, please point it out.
  • @Hog Farm: I based that on the previous paragraphs: "The royalists included an advance guard of Sir William Lambton’s Regiment of Foot and Thomas Howard’s Regiment of Dragoons, plus some ordnance. This latter force, marching down Dere Street, probably met parliamentarian resistance from outlying forces in the yards, gardens and buildings of Piercebridge, which was driven back over the bridge." I read this to mean that the dragoons first, then the infantry. Harrias talk 06:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Checked all of the references to Newman, Hopper 2011, the Battlefields Trust, and three of the Daniels & Philo references. Looks to be in good shape on the sourcing, just need the query above addressed. Hog Farm Bacon 01:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

Great to see you at ACR again, Harrias. A few comment from me:

  • suggest "The Battle of Piercebridge was fought on 1 December 1642 in County Durham, England, during the First English Civil War."
    • Yeah, that's probably a bit smoother. Changed. Harrias talk 13:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Earl of Newcastle was advancing with an army of 6,000"
  • drop the comma from "was in its fourth month, since Charles I"
  • "the Kking's departure"
    • As we are talking about a specific King, rather than a general king, it should be capitalised. Harrias talk 13:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think so, per MOS:JOBTITLES: "The formality (officialness), specificity, or unusualness of a title is not a reason to capitalize it." Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Per the second bullet point from that section for when it should be capitalised: "When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., the Queen, not the queen (referring to Elizabeth II)". Harrias talk 08:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link North Sea
  • "to enable Charles' wife Henrietta Maria (formally known as Queen Mary)"
  • "when Henrietta Maria returned" where had she gone?
    • "to enable Charles's wife Henrietta Maria (formally known as Queen Mary) to land with a supply of weapons from the continent, and with protecting her once she arrived" Harrias talk 13:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I should clarify, it isn't clear whether she had left yet. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Peacemaker67: Left to the continent, or left to return? If the former, I've hopefully made that clearer now ("to enable Charles's wife Henrietta Maria (formally known as Queen Mary) to land with a supply of weapons from the continent where she had left for in February, and with protecting her once she arrived." If the latter, she hadn't. Harrias talk 08:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link advance guard, suggest "as part of advance guards"
  • "The infantry was made up of a detachment of 400 men, possibly split into four companies" as we already know there were 400
    • Cut and rephrased slightly differently to flow better. Harrias talk 13:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and how much successful their recruitment had been"
  • introduce Howard's rank when first mentioned, and Colonel Sir Thomas Howard→Howard
    • I've removed it completely. A couple of the sources are ambiguous on this, and it was more a position than a rank at the time anyway. Harrias talk 13:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Carlbury#Carlbury Hill and Carlbury Hall for Carlbury Hill
  • Sir William Lambton's infantry
  • link Bradford
  • just watch your p. and pp., fn 2 needs fixing
  • what makes Daniels & Philo reliable?
    • Although it was published by "The Authors & Heritage Lottery Fund", it was put together by Tees Archaeology (the local archaeological society) and the Battlefields Trust. Harrias talk 13:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Peacemaker67; I have responded to each point above. Harrias talk 13:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, supporting. Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

  • I think that some of your sources in "Opposing forces" forces are talking cobblers, but that's not your fault. (A "push of the pike" from defensive units"; yeah, right!)
  • Roberts also describes them as mainly defensive in nature by this stage, as musketeers became the more potent attacking force, hence the change from 1:1 to 3:2 to 2:1 and so on... Harrias talk 14:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! I have three sources for the 3ECW who describe pikes as the offensive component of an infantry regiment. And surely if pikes were there to keep the cavalry off, they would be evenly distributed, not grouped as a "stand". Probably best to leave further discussion for over a pint sometime. So long as you are backed by a consensus of sources then, obviously, you are fine.
  • "Infantry formations and tactics were similar in both armies, generally based on the previous military experience of the commanding officers" So far as I can work out, this doesn't actually tell us anything about the formations and tactics. Or, actually, anything about anything.
  • I think I mostly pilfered and adapted this from the Dunbar article while I was working out how to format the section. But you're right, and given this wasn't a set piece battle, it is pretty irrelevant anyway. Removed. Harrias talk 10:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lol! Nice: blame me for your wording.
  • "were armoured with just a helmet and plate armour on their torso" Why "just"? Link "plate armour on their torso" to cuirass.
  • Removed "just", and linked (it's pretty confusing that a harquebusier wore cuirass armour mind...) Harrias talk 10:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and carried a sword, two pistols and a carbine" I realise that that ropey source supports you, but are you sure that you want to go with most non-dragoon cavalry carrying a carbine as well as a sword and two pistols? (If they "remained mounted to fight", when were they supposed to use them?)
  • @Gog the Mild: Just a note on this one, but flicking through my Edgehill books, both Peter Young, and Roberts & Tincey list two pistols and a carbine for the cavalry. Harrias talk 10:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added in Tincey to provide support for this. They fired while mounted, but otherwise fought in the same manner as the musketeers, rotating the firing rank by rank as they advanced. (Except for Rupert's "charge first, fire later" theory, of course.) Harrias talk 14:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds bizarre, but what do I know?
  • The source doesn't say ""; it says "often up to 18 feet (5-6m) long". (No, I don't know how something can be "often up to" either.) That's cus they were meant to be 18 foot when issued, but long enough and sound enough timber wasn't always available; and anyway, the pikemen hated the unwieldly length and cut them down to about 15 foot as soon as they could get away with it. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have Troops and tactics of the Third English Civil War at an advanced stage in a sandbox.

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: This has given me the push to finally buy Soldiers of the English Civil War (1): Infantry and (2): Cavalry which have been in my Civil War wish list for ages. They should arrive on Saturday, so I'll mop this up with better sources then, rather than root around for each battle. (My Edgehill books have a lot of detail on this, but I'm always wary of using commentary on one battle in the article for another.) Harrias talk 17:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't do it - you will then know more than me, which would be an unnatural state of affairs. They should certainly render your formations and tactics sections pretty unrebuttable. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Replies above. Harrias talk 14:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D[edit]

I'm woefully ignorant about the English Civil War, but think that this article meets the A-class criteria. I've got two suggestions for a possible FAC:

  • "Unlike the disputed state of Yorkshire" - not sure about this wording
  • A photo of the remaining earthworks noted in the last para would be very useful, if it would be feasible to obtain Nick-D (talk) 01:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_of_Piercebridge&oldid=971960855"