Talk:Battle of Marston Moor

message: I have rewritten this article, but it needs alot more information in the background section and the battle. Not to mention copy-editing...better prose...but I've started to cite sources, of which this article needs alot more. Additionally, I don't really have a good grasp of the aftermath or general historical analysis of the outcome. 
Also, I have little information on the exact number of troops and their layout before the battle began (who led what, etc). That needs to be expanded, and clarified. Qjuad 13:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The aftermath section mentions the impact that this battle had on driving Royalist forces out of northern England.  But I can't tell from this article who actually won the entire war and what impact this battle had on that. CLA 02:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-write 

message: This looks to be a very promising article;  just going through it for the GA review, but for the moment I feel I need to put the nomination on hold.  There are a few, hopefully easily fixed, issues that I think prevents me from passing it at the moment.  I shall try to list them here, so you know what needs addressing.
*In the lead, I'm curious as to why there is a single reference, at the end of the 2nd paragraph.  Personally, I prefer to see a lead without any references, since there shouldn't be anything there that isn't mentioned in more detail in the main article.
*[edit]Oh, and the lead could probably do with being expanded per WP:LEAD.  I am, unfortunately, terrible at writing leads, so can't offer any suggestions :(  Carre 14:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A GA hold is only supposed to last seven days.  I see some of the above have now been addressed, but not all.  Therefore, I'm giving you a choice – I can extend the on-hold for a bit (will put a note on the GAN page) to give you a bit more time to finish up, or I can fail now and you can renom at a later date.  Up to you.  Please let me know, here or on my talk, within a day or so or I'll just fail anyway, which would be a shame since this is really very close.  Thanks. Carre 13:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of these issues look like they can be addressed quickly, so if you would please extend the on-hold deadline by a day or two I'll pitch in with addressing all of the remaining MOS/copyedit issues. --Malleus Fatuarum 16:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done - give me a shout when you think you're done.  I don't think the others over at GAN will shout at me for the extension ;)  Do you have the reference material too Malleus, or are you just going to be sorting out the MOS/prose hoops we all have to jump through?  Cheers. Carre 19:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have some of the reference material, hopefully enough to address the points you've raised if nobody else pitches in to help. Thanks for extending the deadline. I just hate to see an otherwise good article fail GA for the lack of addressing a reviewer's perfectly reasonable concerns. :) --Malleus Fatuarum 21:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Having put those two statements in myself, though Heaven knows how many months ago, I'll have citations in a couple of hours if you can hold the guillotine blade up. Both are fairly well documented (in Young and in Royle for example). HLGallon 13:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lovely work everyone;  I have no problems passing this at GA now - ArticleHistory placed at the top of the page.  Carre 11:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Review 

message: I don't suppose I'm the only person who's found this page because of the song on ELO's first album.  Should that be mentioned?  It's not entirely an instrumental and Roy Wood's narration could do with a bit of context.  Asat (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means, add a Battle in Popular Culture section to the article, but be careful to patrol it; similar sections in other articles have attracted all sorts of non-notable or frivolous information and cruft.HLGallon (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Does anyone know the source of the narration in this Electric Light Orchestra track?  Its text is as follows:  "My Lord King, you stoop to betray your own people; and even in the eyes of God, do you not relent?  I am therefore bound by no other course.  I shall raise an army.  Together we will march against you and your kind, and every born man will fight to regain his own freedom, and cleanse his wretched soul."  Is this an actual historical quotation?  In my non-expert judgment, the quote sounds like it more likely belongs to the beginning of the Civil War than to 1644. — Lawrence King (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  And every born man will fight 

message: I have not provided a courtesy link to the letter because the site where it lies is on Wikipedi'a black list. But here is the content:
Letter by Arthur Trevor to Lieutenant-General, The Marquis of Ormonde (10 July 1644)
In the fire, smoke and confusion of that day, the runaways on both sides were so many, so
breathless, so speechless, and so full of fears, that I should not have taken them for men;
both armies being mingled, both horse and foot; no side keeping their own posts.
In this horrible distraction did I coast the country; here meeting with a shoal of Scots
crying out 'Weys us, we are all undone'; and so full of lamentation and mourning, as if
their day of doom had overtaken, and from which they knew not whither to fly: and anon
I met with a ragged troop reduced to four and a Cornet; by and by with a little foot officer
without hat, band, sword, or indeed anything but feet and so much tongue as would serve
to enquire the way to the next garrisons, which (to say the truth) were well filled with the
stragglers on both sides within a few hours, though they lay distant from the place of the
fight 20 or 30 miles.
I shall now give your Excellence the short of the action. The armies faced one another
upon Hessam-Moor, three miles from York, about 12 of the clock, and there continued
within the play of the enemy's cannon until 5 at night; during all which time the Prince
and the Marquis of Newcastle were playing the orators to the soldiers in York, (being in a
raging mutiny in the town for their pay) to draw them forth to join with the Prince's foot;
which was at last effected, but with much unwillingness. The enemy perceiving the
advance of that addition to the Prince's army, instantly charged our horse, and mingled
with very great execution on both sides. On the left wing the enemy had the better of us,
and on the right wing, where the Prince charged, we had infinitely the better of the
enemy; so that in truth the battle was very doubtful, as in the number of the slain as well
as the success of the day. This, my Lord, is what can be punctually said of this encounter;
each side being retired with a broken wing and gone to the bone-setter.
[In code in the original:]
The horse of P. Rupert and Lord Byron were totally routed; all their cannon taken; the
Marquis of Newcastle fled unto Scarborough, and some say unto France; P. Rupert's
forces of foot destroyed; yet he keeps the field with 5000 horse and 2000 foot, but will
shortly march to Chester. The fault is laid wholly upon the Marquis of Newcastle.
T. Carte. Collection of Letters. (1739), I:56.
The reason for wanting to in include a mention of "Hessam-Moor" in a footnote is because some older books use that name see for example:
* — see the last few words on 37 and the first two on 38.
and the mention will mean that anyone searching for a battle using an alternative old name will come across this article. -- PBS (talk) 12:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Letter by Arthur Trevor to Lieutenant-General, The Marquis of Ormonde (10 July 1644) 

message: I have been adding some updates to the article, only just getting to grips with policy re using primary sources. Am I right in thinking that the cannot be used directly from a primary source, but CAN be used is quoted in a secondary one?
Also I have added back in detail one editor removed about number of Covenanter Regiments. This was established in 1990 by Edward Furgol's work on the composition of the various Covenanter armies, and is quoted by numerous authors. The trouble is it is a cumbersome work to use as it goes alphabetically, so the Marston regiments are not listed together. It has been summarised in Murdoch & Grosjean in one page, which can then be used as a way into Furgol. Enjoying following the evolution of this one Tentsmuir (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the Furgol book. I see the note you've made to it. It would be a chore to go through each regiment and add page numbers, but it could be done - thoughts? personally I think simply ref the book. Marston is well indexed in it.Thugcat (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The regiments should be listed in the article on Marston Moor order of battle, which at present lists only fifteen and a half regiments (based on Young and other works which in turn are based on Lumsden's map and letter) HLGallon (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

text: I'll take a look at the OdB now and see which are missing and add them in. They are listed on contemoprary sources which i can't quote as they've not been published.Tentsmuir (talk) 09:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

text: Right, I have added in the missing regiments and tied them into the Lumsden Key. By using the letters from the key itself you can see where Young had missed these regiments. I have added reference to the Key, citing the plate reproduced by Young. I have added in citation to Murdoch & Grosjean where they point out how the Key had been misread. I would argue that the Gordon Regiment which does not appear on the Key is actually the one attributed to Fairfax in the Van. None of the eyewitnesses accounts mention a Fairfax regiment there (but they do talk of one in the van of the right wing!). However, Lumsden commanded Gordon's after his main charge (Louden's) had fled. Did he assume command of Gordon's from its commander, or were they originally brigaded with Louden and he was in charge from the start? Anyway, 18 regiments located, Gordon's there, not located, but somewhere front and centre. 19 Covenanter regiments of foot in total. NB - I think one of the Covenanter Horse regimensts listed in this Order of Battle was not at Marston. Would need Furgol to check it. Any takers? Tentsmuir (talk) 10:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Covenanter Updates

message: I have added a corrective to the James Somerville account. The man who wrote the Somerville account of the battle was a relative trying to write a retrospective account of the lieutenant colonel (and other family members) in a time of Episcopalian ascendancy in Scotland - when all Presbyterians were being demonised in the period known as the Killing Times in Scotland. I add the URL to the account here so that it can easily be seen that this is a retrospective quoting other sources and stating specifically that the author is writing about someone else, for example on p.352 "But now I return to the remaining part of this Gentleman's memorie, haveing again brought him to live a countrey gentleman. Being freed of his military imployement etc .... ":
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eBAXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA489&dq=Memorie+of+the+Somervilles+volume+2&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LFemVOShGpDdav66gPAM&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Yorke&f=false
Tentsmuir (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  James Somerville 

message: Maybe I missed it, but the offer by the king of a cessation of arms after the battle, on 04 July 1644, is not mentioned. Any context available? Shtove (talk) 08:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlikely to be related. The King would not have heard of the result of the battle within two days (York to Evesham is over  as the crow flies, three or four days' journey even by relays of fast horses.) Rupert would have been unlikely to have dispatched a full account of the battle immediately. The King would have been influenced rather by his own recent victory at the Battle of Cropredy Bridge. HLGallon (talk) 09:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

text: Add: according to H.C.B. Rogers, "Battles and Generals of the Civil War", p.152, the King first had news of the Battle of Marston Moor while at Bath (pursuing the Earl of Essex's army into the West Country) on 15 July.HLGallon (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cessation of arms