Talk:First Battle of Middlewich

Military history: British / European / Early Modern / Wars of the Three Kingdoms C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)
	Wars of the Three Kingdoms task force

Creation[edit]

This article was created by copying text out of the Middlewich article [1]. That text was eventually removed from the Middlewich article. So for history of the text before 17:06, 27 February 2006, see the history of the Middlewich article. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Nantwich[edit]

The Battle of Nantwich took place 26 January 1644, so unless there were two battles of Nantwich, the source Sir Thomas Aston, 1st Bt is wrong about the date of the battle. I suspect that it is wrong, because it states Aston was captured at Nantwich, which if true and the date was correct, would have made him a prisoner before this battle. So I am removing (following the Battle of Nantwich in January 1642). from the article. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to Nantwich is correct although it was a skirmish rather than a battle. However the source Sir Thomas Aston, 1st Btis wrong about Aston being captured there. He was captured in November 1645 on his way to Cheshire. ChrisBr 17:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have another source for the Nantwich skirmish and for Sir Thomas Aston (cavalier) capture in November 1645? Might he have been captured more than once? --Philip Baird Shearer 18:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the above before I read your improving edits to the article. So yes you do have sources! But could you please source "Aston turned up eventually at Whitchurch and although he claimed the skirmish as a draw," --Philip Baird Shearer 18:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there are some pages missing from my notes and it is not possible to give the exact source. It would seem to have been an account given by the Commisioners of Array (to the King?). However the article at http://website.lineone.net/~corbett_group/First/People/dragoon.htm more or less supports what I wrote: "In the darkness of the skirmish, the experience of Brereton’s men under his subordinate, Major Lothian, was a distinct advantage over the inexperienced Shropshire men. Even so it leaves us on the 29th with Aston at Whitchurch berating all soundly, while Sir Vincent is at Market Drayton. Sir Vincent wrote to Sir Francis Ottley (the Governor of Shrewsbury) that while it had been bad, it had not been as bad as it could have been, and please may we have as many surgeons as possible. This seems to give the lie to the supposed fight with a nary a blow exchanged."

The sources for the capture of Sir Thomas Aston in November 1645 include Malbon, The Dictionary of National Biography and The House of Commons Journal Volume 4. 24 November 1645. This latter source refers to a letter from "the Committe at Stafford, of 10 Novembris 1645, concerning the Taking of Sir Thomas Aston Prisoner, and others with him, the routing of his party..."--ChrisBr 18:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Year of the battle[edit]

1642 or 1643? Is this a Old Style and New Style dates problem? The following sources use 1643 so I have changed the year of the battle to 1643.

--Philip Baird Shearer 19:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both "Memories of Middlewich" and "Middlewich 900-1900" date the first battle of Middlewich to 1642 - the section in "Memories of Middlewich" is based on T.A. Coward’s “Picturesque Cheshire.” Middlewich 900-1900 is quote Thomas Astons explanation, which is dated 1642. There was a second battle of Middlewich in December 1643. Changed to 1642/3 for clarity. Salinae 21:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to remove the "N.S" link. Personally I feel that it only confuses the reader as it could give the impression that the Old Style date has been converted to the New Style date. This is not the case however (the New Style date of the battle would be 23 March 1643). Usual practice is to use the date in the Style in use in the country concerned but with the year always beginning on 1 Jan (not 25 March as in this case). This is confirmed in the Wikipedia article on New Style dates: "Usually in modern histories, to avoid confusion and to keep dates consistent, the OS dates are mapped onto NS dates with an adjustment for the start of the year to 1 January." Any objections to removing the link?--ChrisBr 17:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would not be 23 March. As the article says it would remain 13 March (The only date I can think of where this is not true for an event in Britain and Ireland is the Battle of the Boyne (which has to do with the Irish victors disliking papist dates and keeping the Julian date which maps to July 12 (take a leap year or two)). For example Charles I was executed January 30 1649 (NS) January 30 1648 (OS). I put in New Style because initially there was some confusion by an editor using an original source as to the year of the battle.

I have just read the NS article it has been edited a lot since I last edited it and I'll have to fix it again. However see the paragraph "The mapping of new dates onto old dates with a start of year adjustment works well with little confusion for events which happened before the introduction of the Gregorian Calendar..." for a description of what I mean. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you mean. I just thought that it might be confusing to the average reader. One more or less has to read the whole N.S. article to realize that "N.S" doesnt necessarily mean an exact conversion to the Gregorian calendar (by the way for a contemporary in France the battle would have occurred on the 23 March). The average reader assumes that the year begins on 1 January anyway so 13 March 1643 (without the "N.S.") conveys exactly when the battle took place. For example the article on Charles I gives the date of his beheading as 30 January 1649. There is no reference to "N.S" or "O.S." but it is all the same perfectly clear to the average reader when Charles I was beheaded. However this is not something I am fanatic about so the "N.S" link can stay in if others feel that it is necessary. I'm new to wikipedia (though not to the study of History) and dont want to get in a fight with experienced contributors!--ChrisBr 15:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've hacked in a fix to the Old Style and New Style dates article to put the information up front into the introduction's second paragraph and made some small adjustments to the rest of the page to make this point clearer. As I said before, I put NS into this article because of the earlier confusion, and I do not want to have to go around that loop again if an editor chooses to read the sources and thinks we have made a mistake. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

poorly written, confused, and seemingly duplicative[edit]

This article is very badly written and seems, especially in the section on the battle itself, to repeat the narrative of events several times with slight variations. The author seems to place more emphasis on including quotations than on writing a clear summary. Persons are referred to without having been introduced. The word "latter" is overused in the section on the events of the 12th that is already sufficiently confused by the references to two different Breretons (apparently unfortunately both named William). Ellis is described in some places as a captain and in others as a colonel. Aston seems to have only one troop of horse, but then at least three troops of Royalist horse are separately identified. At first Sir William is said to not intend to attack the Royalists, but then he is then said to have intended an attack. No attempt is made to describe in a clear fashion the original Royalist plan of defense.It is unclear why Professor Eric Ives is called out by name in text when there is no indication his theories are controversial or distinctive--references notes would be sufficient. Almost all of the cited online sources are dead links.

Hopefully someone with access to good, sound material can rewrite this article in a more comprehensible form.

ETA: I've found a copy of Phillips at archive.org, which contains both Aston's and Brereton's accounts of the battle. As soon as I have time, I will attempt a revision of the article to make it more readable and less confused while retaining the current level of information.

Winterbadger (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the section a bit to distinguish more clearly between Sir William Brereton (Parliamentarian commander) and Lord Brereton (Royalist). This has, I'm afraid, involved the reintroduction of one "latter", to clarify that it was the baron, not Sir Nicholas Byron, who was related to Sir William. Also, the link didn't point to the correct Nicholas Byron, so I've removed it. Guthrum (talk) 11:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

minor archaeological find[edit]

http://www.middlewichguardian.co.uk/news/9442799.Middlewich_photographer_finds_a_piece_of_history/

Someone appears to have found a cannonball from the war.©Geni 17:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on First Battle of Middlewich. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 00:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]