User talk:Gog the Mild/sandbox6

How to tell what day of the week it is

Can't believe I got the term dates mixed up! It's the head's fault - she gave me a maths planning document which had the wrong dates on it - I've been working from that rather than the official school calendar, I didn't even think to check it myself. I only realised the dates were mixed up on Friday morning - my weekend was a very different shape from what I'd been hoping for! Nevertheless, I've taken a quick look at what's in your sandbox, and I like the structure of it. I'll try to find some time this week, but will definitely have more next week, to see what I can add in from whatever sources we've got at home; should we set up a talk page at your sandbox for discussion? GirthSummit _(blether) 07:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: That is a bit of a classic! I should have noticed myself as my diary has Gareth and Laura to Derbyshire in it for the 23rd. Don't worry too much about timing - Wikipedia isn't going anywhere and I have been slow myself. I will probably start in the middle and work outwards, dropping near-random bits in as I come across them in sources. This leads to a mess of duplication, gaps and lack of flow which I tidy up towards the end. That work for you? Feel entirely free to amend any of my inputs. I'm hoping to concentrate on the weaponry and tactics over the next few days.

I now have Reid and Reese, both of which have that RS aura. (Oddly, the Osprey one more so than Pen & Sword.) Plus Royle's The Civil War, an interesting article by a L A M Stewart, and Harrias has kindly sent me the relevant pages from Cassell's Battlefields of Britain and Ireland. Do either you or Laura have access to Wheeler's 1992 "The Logistics of the Cromwellian Conquest of Scotland 1650–1651"? I am not sure if we will need Johnston's Essential Agony: The Battle of Dunbar 1650. This review suggests not - we will have better sources for the deep background it is strong on. Let's see how we go. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gog the Mild (do you know whether I need to ping you if I'm editing your userspace, or do you get notified anyway?) So, I just had a conversation with Laura about what she reckons the 'Background' section should cover, and I've converted my back-of-an-envelope jottings into what's in the current section. I wanted to get your take on the subjects I'm including before writing it up properly and referencing it - what do you reckon, do we need to go further and explain more about the civil wars? Should the stuff about Leslie's scorched earth tactics and Cromwell's withdrawal go into a 'Prelude' section?

With regard to sourcing, that Wheeler source looks good, but the journal is a bit of an odd one and York don't subscribe to it. L thinks that she has his book in her office though - she's not allowed in at the moment, but apparently they're going to arrange a day when they'll be allowed to come in and pick stuff up, so she should be able to get it soon. I'd be interested to see those pages Harrias sent you. From the shelves at home, we have Kenyon and Ohlmeyeer's The Civil Wars - A Military History of England Scotland and Ireland 1638 - 1660, Dow's Cromwellian Scotland, and Woolrych's Britain in Revolution 1625 - 1660, all of which have some useful stuff in them, plus we've got a few slightly more generalised ones. All very academic and dense, I'm feeling slightly daunted, but L has promised to explain any hard words. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• "an immediate threat to Cromwell et al" I'm not sure how much stress we want to put on Cromwell at this point. Sure, with hindsight he was important. Obviously Laura would know best.
• "Might be worth mentioning somewhere that Cromwell" Absolutely. A paragraph on it towards the end of Background I think.
• Looking at my (very) rough proposed first paragraph, I think that maybe it could do with further expansion(?)
• We need a paragraph or two on the political and religious situation in Scotland.
• We need much the same for England, especially on the fissiparous nature of the parliamentarian coalition.
• "to purge the army of undesirables in order to create an 'army of the saints'" Background to and detail of needed. Er, I'm repeating myself aren't I? I'll stop.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, hi - yes, absolutely - the text I threw up there wasn't intended to be anything like how it will end up, I just wanted to get a feel from you about whether you agreed that these were the right things to cover, what was missing, etc. All of the paragraphs will need expanding and writing properly. I take the point about not necessarily mentioning Cromwell at that point - we can get into that later. Will think about how to cram the political and religious situation in Scotland and England into a few paragraphs! GirthSummit _(blether) 10:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

At the risk of being even more "grandma and eggs", I wouldn't worry too much about length at this point. Cutting to size later is relatively easy. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, what think ye to the background? It's rather Scot-centric, because I thought it was important why (from an English perspective) the Scots seem to be flip-flopping over which side they were on, and why the king's arrival there was perceived as a threat; do you think we need more English background? GirthSummit _(blether) 14:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I've added some more to the prelude, but I realise I'm now overlapping with your beginning of thee description of the battle, so I'll stop. Would you like me to send you the relevant pages from Woolrych, and perhaps you could decide an appropriate point to make the cut-off from the prelude and the battle and blend them together? I like that quote from Cromwell writing to the governor of Newcastle - you can almost hear his voice. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments

Hi Girth Summit, that looks pretty good to me. I have made some tweaks. Revert anything you don't like.

I like em!

• I think that we need an explanation of what "Covenanted Scottish kirk" is. Either half a sentence in line or a footnote.

  Hmm. I think a footnote probably, it's hard to summarise in half a sentence, but I'll have a think.

• "starkly divided" I'm not sure about "starkly".

  I'd take suggestions for an alternative word. The division was deep, and often violent, and when the Engagers finally gained ascendency they went so far as to say to ban anyone from publishing material critical of the Engagement on pain of death - pretty stark in my book! I could expand on this if you don't think it would be bloated - much of Laura's book is given over to the Engagement Crisis, and it goes some way to explaining why they wanted to purge the army afterwards - the division was really bitter.

I think that a couple of sentences of explanation would be helpful. Laura can boil her book down into two sentences - yes?

• " The English parliament established the republican Commonwealth, which would allow for government in the absence of a king,[9] whereas the Scottish parliament declared Charles' son, also named Charles, king as Charles II, but required that he first sign both the Covenant[10] and the Solemn League and Covenant, and to recognise the supreme authority of the kirk in religious matters, and of the Scottish parliament in civil affairs." Bit of a long sentence.

  Yeah, fair enough, I'll revise that.

• I think that we should mention the capture of Dunbar in chronological sequence.

  OK, should be able to manage that.

• I have worked what I already had for the start of "Battle" into the end of your "Prelude". See what you think.

  Love it.

• "removing 80 officers and 4,000 of Leslie's men" Without consulting the sources, weren't they disproportionately veterans? And weren't they largely replaced, albeit by men without experience of war?

  That's my understanding from what L told me verbally; the sources I've got imply that but don't seem to say it outright, I'll have another look and ask L where she got that from.

No worries. I've checked, it's in my sources. Seeing as you have been doing all the heavy lifting, I'll insert these.

Time for me to get some content in methinks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Looking forward to seeing it! GirthSummit _(blether) 17:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Ouch! Gog the Mild (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• I have not given details of how either matchlock or firelock firearms work. What do you think?

  So, I actually think that we might want a word or two about the difference might be useful. My understanding is that one of the problems on the Scottish side was that in standing his men down, Leslie had allowed his men to put out the matches - when Cromwell attacked, many of his men couldn't fire their weapons.

True. OK. Let's see how it goes.

• Royle (Civil War: The War of the Three Kingdoms, 1638–1660) states that the army was purged well before the English crossed the border; he then refers to "a fresh purge shortly before leaving Edinburgh". If this is correct we should mention both.

  Good point, I was getting confused between two sources - Dow talks about a commission for purging the army being set up on 21 June, and it having a disastrous effect on morale - I was conflating that with the on-the-spot purge mentioned by Woolrych that happens when Charles turns up and the troops cheer him. (They were supposed to cry out with one voice 'get ye to kirk and repent for your father's sins, or words to that effect...). I'll fix it tomorrow.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• I am still working on it, but shout if you think the detail on clothing is going too far. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

  To invert Darth Vader, I am but a learner, you are the master.

Hmm.

I just found this by the way - please say we can use it, I love it.

• Stoope Charles!

Of course. It seems entirely appropriate to me. I have stuck it in, but feel free to play around with it.

GirthSummit _(blether) 19:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• I would value your opinion as to whether my descriptions of the infantry and cavalry tactics are clear enough for you to form a mental picture of how they work. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd say that the cavalry bit is good - clear and easily understandable. A couple of comments on the infantry section:

• They were XXX - I guess you're going to add something there.

Yep. That's for an explanation of how matchlock and flintlock firing mechanisms work. I intend to come back to it, and the "XXX" should prevent me forgetting.

• Regulations called for... - you've already said that the infantry on both sides were similar, but should we be clear about whether these are English regulations or if they applied to both sides?

Tweaked.

• Regiments are usually organised into brigades, and the brigades sometimes form a battalia - fair enough. Does your later description apply just to a battalia, or is it also a description that would apply to individual brigades? In which case, might it be better to describe the tactics after introducing brigades, and then note that brigades may be combined to form a larger battalia that operated in a similar manner?

"... brigades of three regiments each, which were typically deployed with two regiments abreast and the third behind as a reserve. Sometimes the two forward regiments [of a brigade] would amalgamate ..." It seems clear to me, well it would, wouldn't it. I have tweaked this to try and make it a little clearer. It seems sensible to get all of the information on how regiments interacted over in one go, but I suppose that I could split it if you feel that would be clearer[?]

No, I think that's better now.

• I'm not sure that I understand what 'one metre of frontage per file' means. I think it means that there was about a metre between each man at the front of the unit, and there were four to five men lined up behind each of them - perhaps this could just be explained a little more?

No, I'm trying to say that each man had a square metre of ground - the space between men would vary dependant on whether they stood chest or shoulder to the front, but the total frontage of the unit wouldn't [shouldn't]. I have given an example, does that help? (Modern, 21st C, infantry dress ranks by separating so that each member can just touch the shoulder of the person on each side. This gives approximately 1 m nose-to-nose. I don't have a source, but assume that this dates back to at least the Romans.)

The example helps - yes, I think that's clear now.

• Against cavalry doctrine called for ... Is 'against cavalry doctrine' a noun phrase? Or, if 'cavalry doctrine' is the noun phrase, I'm not sure this sentence is grammatical. I think it's saying that when threatened by cavalry, the units would tighten up and advance. Should we add a few words to explain why these units were so effective against cavalry?

Any better? It is so obvious to me that I really struggle to explain it!

Yes, better. I'd have put a comma after cavalry, but Tim riley wouldn't think much of that!

Indeed he wouldn't - IAR!

GirthSummit _(blether) 10:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I've done a bit more on the Background and Prelude sections. L has given me some other stuff to think about, I'm going to add a few more sentences, both about the Engagement Crisis, and expanding on the English side of things (we've sort of glossed over the fact that, by the time we're talking about, the army has seized control of parliament and the king). I'm also amused at the number of times we're talking about the persistence of the bad weather, causing sickness and misery amongst the English troops - welcome to July and August in Scotland!

Surely it has always been like that during Scottish "summers"?

GirthSummit _(blether) 11:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Still a work in progress, so we can give it another good kicking further down the road. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, OK, I've put everything I think necessary into the Background. It's now substantially longer than most entire articles I've written! It needs a good copy edit with fresh eyes, and we can discuss whether it needs to be trimmed back to reduce the length. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

My last FA had 988 words of background, and one ready to go with 902. This currently has 1,124. So a trim, maybe; but that's all. And after generating 100 TFA blurbs for Dank (where I have to condense an entire FA into a hard limit of 1,025 characters including spaces) I know that one can squeeze quite a bit when pushed and still retain comprehensibility. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Map

4:30 am

This battle is considerably more complex than I had thought, and than is commonly supposed. Plus the map is inaccurate. I am going to see if I can get a series of maps designed - wish me luck. And I think that you will need to be tough with me to make sure that I don't assume knowledge of how troops of the time moved and fought. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

If you have any trouble with getting some maps, pop me a message; it's something I've been playing around with off-wiki. I'm not quite up to the standard of some of the maps on here yet though! Harrias ^talk 11:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Harrias, I have literally just - 13:01 - sent a begging email to someone who helped me out last year. I'll copy it to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Re maps/images, you've probably seen it already, but just in case, this is available. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd feel happier if there was some information on when and where it was published. Although I am not sure that we will have room for it. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Furgol uses it in his chapter - he describes it in these terms: "Shortly after the Scottish defeat at Dunbar an English artist memorialized the event in a detailed print of the battle." I read that as saying it's from a contemporary English newsbook. He also draws the viewer's attention to the representations of the ships, representing England's naval superiority, and the fact that the print shows seven Scottish foot regiments, while the contemporary accounts mention only two. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Harrias has started work on the maps. (I have promised my next commission to Andrew.) They generated a draft in next to no time and seem on top of whatever it is goes into maps. And they specialise in the ECW, which I think will help. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I've just uploaded the first map, showing the positions at 4:30 am. I've stalled a little on this at the moment, as the computer I use for graphics work has ground to a bit of a halt, but I'm hoping to have it back to full speed in the next day or two. Now I've got the first map done, the rest should be pretty quick to do (though Gog is an exacting master...)

@Gog the Mild: I would appreciate if you could edit the description for the battle to add in the sources used for the positions. Harrias ^talk 18:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Harrias, oops. Just spotted this. Will do. Me! Exacting? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Aftermath

I've sketched out my thoughts on what ought to go into the Aftermath section - again, that's not meant to be polished text, just some rough jottings about the material we should cover. Let me know what you think. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems to cover everything. At first glance, the two areas I would have thought that we what a fiar bit on - possibly even to additional sub-sections - are the treatment of the prisoners - you may want to use the text in the existing article as the basis for this - and Cromwell's continuing Scottish campaign. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Re the prisoners: I'm not awfully keen on the existing text - I can't marry up the numbers. It talks about 6,000 prisoners being taken, but both Woolrych and Furgol agree on a number of 10,000 prisoners - what does Reid say? Also, all the chapter of Durham's website says is that the cathedral was used to house 3,000 Scots, but it isn't explicit that the rest died - perhaps some were imprisoned elsewhere, or escaped, or were freed because they knew a guy who knew a guy... The figure of 2,000 dead seems to be OR based on a simple subtraction. The sources I've got are silent about all this - do you have anything? GirthSummit _(blether) 11:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I do, I think. I have only skimmed this bit so far. I think that I can reconcile the numbers. I'll have a go when I get down that far and you can then streamline it for me. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, OK, I've hacked out an aftermath section - feel free to copy edit, move stuff around, or cut right back if you think I've gone too far. If you could add something about the prisoners, that would be brill. (I quite like the Coward quote, but I'm not sure whether it's in quite the right place.) GirthSummit _(blether) 14:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I have, I think, finally finished Opposing forces. Feedback is welcomed. Harrias is producing some cracking maps. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, I've made a few tweaks - mostly typos, and I changed a bit of the punctuation. Feel free to revert any that you don't like (or that might make Tim's eyebrow curl) GirthSummit _(blether) 09:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, forgot to say - I've left your numbers alone, because I expect your sources go into this in more detail than mine, but we will have to reconcile our respective sections on this, as discussed previously - your numbers for the Scottish forces don't seem to allow for the total number of killed + captured + escaped detailed in Woolrych and in Furgol. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks.

As you say, we need to reconcile them. Sources either use their commonsense re Scots numbers and casualties - and come up with various broadly similar figures - or accept Cromwell's uncritically, despite a. them being obviously wrong and b. him having a bit of a CoI. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Next steps

Hi Girth Summit and apologies that it has taken me so long to make progress. It has been hard work for some reason. Things which I think I still have to do:

• Fill in the two "XXXX" sections.
• Go through all the available sources to see if there is anything of note to add - most of the "Battle" is based on Reese and Reid.
• Add cites where needed.
• Have a look at "your" sections, copy editing and flagging up any queries.
• Put together a summary of what different sources say about casualties, especially prisoners, to serve a s adiscussion document between the pair of us.

What have I missed?

When you get the chance, could you:

• Go through "Opposing forces" and "Battle" copy editing and flagging up any issues - especially where I am assuming knowledge and things aren't clear to you. It probably makes sense to wait for all of the maps to be up before you do this.
• Think, and ask Laura, if there are any fundamental areas we have missed or not done justice to.

Size: currently 5,763 words, so will probably come in around 6,000-6,500. Not bad. Compare say with the GA Battle of Marston Moor at 5,600 words; although allowing for quotes in the 6,500 area.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit and Harrias: Do either of you have or have access to Royle Civil War: The War of the Three Kingdoms, 1638–1660? My version is an ebook and doesn't have page numbers. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, hi - sorry, I don't have access to Royle. I will take a look through the sections above as soon as possible - something's come up IRL which will limit the time I have available over the next few days, but I'll get onto it ASAP. Good news is that L has been able to access her office, so I have two books by James Scott Wheeler (The Making of a World Power and The Irish and British Wars 1637 - 1654) in front of me, the latter of which devotes several pages to the battle, and the subsequent campaign - I'll read through that before going over the text. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Just seen this. Are you still after page numbers from Royle? Harrias ^talk 12:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Harrias, yes please! Gog the Mild (talk) 12:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments - Opposing forces

• What's going on with the convert templates for the pikes' lengths - 18ft and 15ft can't both be 5 metres, do we need a decimal place?

Erm, where do you mean. It reads " Pikes as issued in both armies were 18-foot-long (5.5 m), but in the field they were commonly cut down to a more wieldy 15 ft (4.6 m) or so" which seems fair enough to me.

That is very strange. When I looked at that earlier today, I swear that it said "18-foot-long (5 m), but in the field they were commonly cut down to a more wieldy 15 ft (5 m)". I see you haven't change anything, but now it looks fine. I wondered if someone had been dicking about with the template, but nobody seems to have touched it since 2013. Very odd.

It was a stealth attack from Serial Number 54129. Harrias ^talk 18:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Grass! :p :) ——Serial ^# 18:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

That explains it - the template ninja strikes again! GirthSummit _(blether) 18:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Going round gratuitously helping people get their templates right! There should be a policy against it. There probably is. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• The pikemen would be placed in the centre of a formation, in a "stand"; with the musketeers divided on each side.The pikemen would be placed in the centre of a formation, in a "stand"; with the musketeers divided on each side. The semi-colon doesn't feel right - don't ask me to name the rule it's breaking, but it doesn't feel right. I think that should be a comma, or the next clause shouldn't start with 'with' - so, ...in a "stand"; the musketeers would be divided... would work.

; → ,

• However, the flanks and rear were increasingly vulnerable as the decreased space for each man made... What is 'increasingly' referring to, should we just say they were vulnerable?

I am trying to say that the more closely the infantry packed together, as they did to oppose cavalry, the more vulnerable their flanks and rear became. Clearly I am failing. Simply saying that their flanks were vulnerable is a bit of a statement of the obvious and misses the point that security again cavalry to the front came at the expense of the flanks' increased insecurity. I have had another go. See what you think.

Yes, better :)

• link cuirass?

I thought I had. Done.

Thanks for the firm nudge. Feel entirely free to amend any of the article, but it is probably as well that you kicked me into doing it myself. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Good - happy with that section now. Tomorrow I'll go through my bits and try to trim them down to size by cutting away redundant words and the like. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments - Battle

• ..with a slightly smaller force than Pride was south of the cavalry, in position to cross the Burn upstream of the road ford at... When we say 'the Burn', should we either give it its full name, or not capitalise it?

Ho hum. I have ducked the capitalisation discussion by always naming it in full. Probably needed for consistency anyway; so I was wrong either way.

• Holborne and Innes' Brigades... Should it be Holborne's and Innes' Brigades...

Not where I learnt English. As in "Laura and Gareth's house" and not 'Laura's and Gareth's hiuse' etc. Happy to accept that other approaches to this exist, and to change it if you feel it jars.

Ah, OK, I was misunderstanding. I was reading it as meaning Holborne's Brigade and Innes' Brigade; if it is a plurality of brigades, under the joint command of Holborne and Innes, then I withdraw my apostrophic nitpicking.

"Laura and Gareth's cars"; "Laura's and Gareth's cars"; or "Laura's car and Gareth's car"? You teach this stuff, so you get to decide.

This (scroll down to 'Shared or individual possessives') discusses it. If Holborne and Innes had a brigade a piece, I'd give them each an apostrophe so that neither brigade feels left out.

• ...crossed Broxburn at Doon Bridge (the bridge did not exist at the time and withdrew to the east in good order... I think there's a missing parenthesis there, but this is also a bit confusing - we're calling it Doon Bridge, but saying that bridge didn't exist - does that need a bit of explaining? Should we say something like 'at the ford where Doon Bridge would later be built' or something?

It is, we do. Thank you - idiot paraphrasing on my part. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Map 2

5:30 am

Sorry for the delay; completely slipped my mind. Just reading the notes for the third map. Harrias ^talk 18:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Harrias, much appreciated. Now pasted in and I will start checking that the prose matches it. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Campaign boxes

I can't see that {{Campaignbox English Civil War}} or {{Campaignbox Wars of the Three Kingdoms}} needs to be included; neither include a link to this battle; they are top-level navboxes, rather than ones that should appear in the article for individual battles I reckon. Harrias ^talk 18:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

That is not my understanding. For example, every battle listed in the First Punic War navbox has both that navbox and the "Punic Wars" navbox - the one with just the four wars in. Ditto the Second and Third Punic Wars. Ditto 100 Years' War articles having both the "Edwardian Phase" (or whatever) and the "Hundred Years' War" top level navboxes. Those cover a lot of articles. I don't much care, but 3ECW seems the odd topic out in not having a top level navbox. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, per WP:LINKBACK, I'm not sure that usage is MOS compliant: "Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional." Browsing on my phone at the moment though, so will have a more detailed look later, maybe I'm missing something. Harrias ^talk 19:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Or maybe various editors have gotten a little enthusiastic in the past. Or prior to LINKBACK. I am not citing policy, just giving my fairly common experience. It also seems useful to a reader. Why would one remove the "Punic Wars" navbox from a battle article, for example? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Eh, whatever, it's no biggie. Harrias ^talk 20:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Numbers

I think I've been through the sections I've written and am happy with them, all except for the stuff about the numbers of Scottish dead/captured etc. Happy for you to make any changes at all to any part of it, and if you would be willing to address the numbers I'd be grateful. The prof has indicated that she's willing to give it a read through this evening, but I think it's looking in pretty good shape overall. Harrias's maps look terrific. :) GirthSummit _(blether) 08:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it is looking in good shape. I have been through Opposing forces and Battle and am pretty happy. I started the long promised draft on "Numbers" last night and will try and get at least a first stab at it ready for the Prof's scrutiny. Length wise, once we add that and a lead we will be looking at around 6,500 words; longish but not, IMO, overly so. Picking two ECW GA battles at random: Battle of Marston Moor is 5,600 and First Battle of Newbury is 5,200. The last battle article not by me to be promoted to FA was 6,200 and the last war was 7,300. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

In progress:

Sources differ as to Scottish casualties. Cromwell gives figures in his contemporaneous letters for the strength of the Scottish army based on all of its units being at full strength and claims to have "killed near four thousand" and captured 10,000 Scots. In Cromwell’s letters he states that the day after the battle he released between 4,000 and 5,000 of the prisoners. Several modern secondary sources accept these figures; although others dismiss them, with Reid describing them as absurd. The Scottish annalist James Balfour recorded "8 or 900 killed". The English Royalist Edward Walker has 6,000 prisoners being taken and 1,000 of them being released. From Walker’s account Reid calculates that fewer than 300 Scots were killed. Brooks uses the known number of Scots wounded to estimate their dead at 300–500. All accounts agree that approximately Scottish 5,000 prisoners were marched south and that 4,000–5,000 Scots survived to retreat towards Edinburgh; over half of them formed bodies of infantry and the balance cavalry or stragglers. CITE English casualties were low, with Cromwell variously giving them as "not twenty men" or 30–40 killed.

References

Girth Summit: Just checking that you have noticed this. No rush.

The "Primary sources" section: we need to either add the non-battle primary sources, or delete it. I am inclined to delete it. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, I like what you've done there - that would be fine for me. Re 'Primary Sources', if we were to start listing all the primary sources for the content covered in the background and aftermath sections, it would probably become exceedingly lengthy - there's be tons of it. Rather than ditch it, might we incorporate some of it into the 'battle' section, to make it clear that we're just talking about the primary sources for the battle itself?

I'll consult with L and get back to you about the comments below. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Battle

Hi - L and I are going through this just now - a couple of points to discuss...

• Leslie's experienced military lieutenants were unanimous... L can't remember off the top of her head the exact permutations of this, but she thinks the experienced military commanders may also have been persuaded by the clerics - everyone's desperate to get the English out of Scotland, including the military commanders, and the clerics provide a convincing argument to attack (God is on their side). What do your sources actually say about this bit?

Royle: "It is quite likely that the ministers accompanying the army did enjoin him to strike, but Leslie was still a soldier with a soldier’s instincts. The next day he summoned his senior officers, among them old Leven and the experienced James Lumsden, veterans of the German wars and the first fighting in England, and their unanimous decision was to take the battle to Cromwell while his army seemed to be in such a weak state."

Reid ducks and quotes Robert Baillie. But in his wider narrative makes the move part of a sensible, conservative plan which came close to working.

Reese havers, but makes it clear that no one really knows what happened and that everyone had their own agendas afterwards.

Wanklyn also ducks, but makes it clear that he considers the move was for sound military reasons.

Brooks: "Historians disagree". Which is as close as I have found to anyone saying that the kirk pressed or ordered Leslie into it against his better judgement. I wouldn't mind knowing who the historians who advocate that actually are.

• Cromwell intended to launch a dawn assault against the Scots on 3 September,... (that whole paragraph) L typed the following (don't grass me up per WP:NOSHARING): "Nobody really knows Crowmell's intentions, he looked like he was going to launch a dawn offensive. Brilliant commanders like Cromwell, and very competent military commanders like Leslie, never sacrifice men: Cromwell was waiting and watching to see whether he could beat Leslie in the morning, or if he couldn't, take the army back over the border, regroup, get a slamming from his critics and enemies in parliament, but fight another day - the men are still his. And then he sees Leslie's men snuffing their match..." (G again) Is there any way your sources would permit a slight shift in emphasis here along these lines?

Well I find it unpersuasive. It took ALL NIGHT to carry out a complicated redeployment, issue orders, blah, blah. You just don't do that off the hoof. And the Scots SHOULD have had their match relit after their pickets were driven in; which C would have realised. They had plenty of warning. No, no source even hints that that may have been the case. The debate is twixt C having premeditated the whole thing - load of tosh IMO, and comes from the same sources who accept C's word for the size and casualties of the Scottish army - versus those who reckon that he was trying to smash his way out and improvised the flanking manoeuvre from the saddle when he saw the opportunity. And very competent military commanders are utterly ruthless regarding the lives of their men, when push comes right down to push.

• It took the English army all of this foul night to reposition in preparation for the planned pre-dawn assault. Again - planned sounds like this was, well, planned. Yes, they were repositioning - but was it for an assault, or an escape? Any scope for a tweak in emphasis? (L says hello by the way)

Of course. But I don't understand what you would like the emphasis moved to. The same repositioning and planning would apply to either an assault or an escape.

Hi Laura, and thanks.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

GirthSummit _(blether) 20:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Lead

This is about ready to move to main space IMO. Not done, but ready to meet the public. It needs a lead. Would you care to do the first draft, or are you content for me to? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking that we'd need a lead,

For those who like to read at speed,

And I'd quite like to synthesise

Such a thing if, in your eyes,

I'd be the better one to write it -

The idea makes me quite excited.

GirthSummit _(blether) 13:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Fill your boots. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I've hacked out a few paragraphs - first is meant to be a general summary, second is background, I've left the third blank thinking you might be better placed to write about the battle itself, and fourth is aftermath. I've also put in a line at the end about the fact that the battlefield is designated - are we OK to leave that without a citation, since it's linked in the infobox? Do you think that's a decent approach to take? GirthSummit _(blether) 14:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, that's good, but, IMO, already longer than I would want the total lead to be, and I haven't included the actual battle yet. What to try trimming? Designated - if it is in the lead (or the infobox) it also needs to be in the article - where it is cited. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, please yes - trim away whatever you think. Do you think the article could bear a short section on the current state of the battleground? GirthSummit _(blether) 14:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, will do. Absolutely - I had been casually thinking that there would be a separate article in that, even a GA? Have a go. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, I've just been reading through this - have you read it? I'm wondering whether we should mention the stand-off at Haddington as the English withdrew to Dunbar in the preluse - it somewhat explains how it took them two days to cover the seventeen miles! GirthSummit _(blether) 15:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, I hadn't, but I don't see anything new. (Nice summary of the size of the Scottish army. I note that it contradicts itself re the number of English killed, which causes me to doubt it's general reliability a little - have you seen the dates of the secondary sources?)

I would prefer not to; we would then need to counterpoint that several other sources disagree and write that it took them so long because they were sick, disheartened and knackered. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

PS In 1604, when Marlborough marched his winter-rested army 250 miles in five weeks - an average of 7.1 miles per day - it was the wonder of the campaign. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, blimey, that's slow going - were they tripping up over their pikes all the time? Fair enough, let's skip it. I'm about to add a section on the battlefield... GirthSummit _(blether) 15:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Help! What's wrong with that damned ref at the end of the 'battlefield today' section? I'm hopeless with the sfn template... GirthSummit _(blether) 16:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, Sorted. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Battlefield

That's a lovely new section. Do you wish to claim the rights to turn it into a full article, or is it up for grabs? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

PS Are you going to insert the missing bit on Monck's troops sacking Dundee, or shall I? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, ooh - yes, I put that in as a placeholder, intending to come back to it - Laura apparently has a source somewhere, but if you've got a good one to hand then go ahead. I thought it would be interesting to contrast Cromwell's softly-softly approach at the start of teh war to Monck's behaviour at the end of it (and once Cromwell had departed). GirthSummit _(blether) 16:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and yes, up for grabs if you're interested - that website is the only source I'd have to work on at the moment, and I've got a building on the go... GirthSummit _(blether) 16:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, ta. I am looking to get five spin off articles out of this, four of them new.

Once Dundee's done, want to go public and overwrite the existing article? If so, me pasting in the lead, Preperation and Battle and you doing the rest seems fair. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure - let's go for it! (BTW, if you want me to start any of those articles so you won't break your 'all the articles I've ever started are FAs' streak, let me know :P) GirthSummit _(blether) 16:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

If you do go ahead with the article, perhaps Harrias would be interested in making another excellent map based on the one here. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

That won't load for me. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, apparently their server is down for maintenance, it should come back online at 9pm. It's just a 1:10,000 OS map of the site, with the extents of the designated battlefield drawn on. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Dundee: I have gone for Stewart and Royle. Feel free to rework if there is a more comprehensive source. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, excellent - I think that's good. Two remaining points then:

• There is a random 'CITE' in the 'Casualties' section - were you intending to add something there?
• Do you think the maps should be the same size? GirthSummit _(blether) 17:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah. Inserted but I forgot to tidy up. Thanks.

No. My idea was to have the maps after the first at the same scale, but zoomed in a little. I think having them all the same size as the first would be a little overwhelming; while having the first on a smaller scale makes it difficult to make out. Obviously I am open to a different view on this. And will no doubt get them at FAC even if I weren't. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah - yes, I was being dim - now you've said that, it's obvious. (I've actually made original charts of seabed features professionally - you'd think I might have considered that...)

Thinking about the move - would it be easier to do it in a one fell edit? I'd be happy for you to move it en masse, and mention me in the edit summary? GirthSummit _(blether) 19:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, and done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

What next?

Some thoughts and questions:

• Are you any good at setting up archiving? I can remind myself how to do it if not, but we should probably set up a talk page archive and shift some of those old shouty discussions into it.
• Regarding L's queries above, I'm content to leave things as they lie. She's going off memory of things read years ago, which we don't have to hand now (plus she feels entitled to dispute the content of secondary sources in a way that we're not allowed to as editors!) - your sources support the content that's there, and I've got no grounds to suggest specific changes.
• What are the next steps then towards an FAC? Should we invite a third party to give it a copy edit, or go for peer review?

Happy to follow your lead. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

For clarity, (@Serial Number 54129:) I meant the talk page at Battle of Dunbar (1650), not this talk page - I don't think we've been too shouty with each other! GirthSummit _(blether) 09:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, you know how these Scots and English can be when they get together :) sorry about that, I've moved it there and archived one for starters —— § erial 09:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, thanks for the help again. I've set up a couple of archive pages in the past, but it was ages ago and would have had to go and read instructions (urgh...). GirthSummit _(blether) 10:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit

ar ... archi ... arch ... er, no.

Disputing secondary sources - yeah, I thought that might be it. Personally, having written a lot of battle articles, I feel that the main thread of this one pretty reasonably gets across what actually happened. Some, I have felt frustratingly constrained to follow the sources and write things that just don't seem probable to me.

Well, while we are waiting for Harrias, who seems to have a lot on at the moment, to produce the last two battle maps I would suggest that:

1. I tidy up various MoS and non-MoS bits and pieces
2. We nominate it for GA and see how it goes.
3. We then put a copy edit request in at GoCE
4. And then review the situation; PR may be the way to go, or perhaps ACR, or maybe straight to FAC.

2 and 3 could be reversed. Thoughts?

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I like this plan. I'll leave the MOS stuff to you, you're much better at that than me, then happy to assist in a GA review. Perhaps SN54129 (I won't ping him, it doesn't seem to be unnecessary :P) might be interested in giving it a read through and copy edit? GirthSummit _(blether) 12:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, I am sure that he will. I'll give it one myself, but I need to rest my eyes for a while; I have been staring at this for too long. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely, yes - really hard to see mistakes in something you've just written, your brain sees what it meant to write, not the text on the screen. Have a break. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Did you see my email about the next map? Harrias ^talk 20:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Harrias: Oops. Yes; saw it, mentally put it on my to do list, got distracted, and forgot all about it. Now responded to. Thanks for the nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Royle references

Gog, I've got my copy of Royle in front of me, and am happy to start working through to insert page numbers. My paperback copy obviously has a different ISBN etc; I assume you are happy for me to update the details in the Sources section to match my copy? (Otherwise, after all, it will be a load of tosh!) Harrias ^talk 11:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Harrias, that is exceptionally generous of you, and much appreciated. Yes, of course, change the Source details to a non-tosh setting. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, page numbers added, except for what is now ref #69, which supports "All reached at least approximately their intended positions; without any overrunning them and alerting the Scots." I can't see any explicit mention of this? Harrias ^talk 18:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Harrias, you are a star! Apologies, I think the cite slipped. I have moved it a sentence back to support "It took the English army all of this foul night to reposition in preparation for the planned pre-dawn assault." (Jointly with Brooks.) The words in Royle are 'All through the wet night the men moved into their new positions'. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Another for page 581 then. All done. I assume "p. =69." is a typo in ref #114? Harrias ^talk 19:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Harrias, excellent. Thank you again. Yes, well spotted, and fixed. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Some queries from copy editing

@Girth Summit:

• "The Scottish parliament ... declared his son, also Charles, king of Britain" Just checking that the Scots actually proclaimed CII monarch of a (at the time) non-existent political entity - Britain that is. This will get queried, so do your sources nail it down?
• "Charles' supporters, the royalists". "royalists" or 'Royalists'? An open question.
• Likewise "parliamentarians".

• Coincidentally, I was just reading through, and capitalised all of these. Harrias ^talk 21:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• "it was heavily defeated at Preston by a New Model Army force led by Oliver Cromwell". "New Model Army" is introduced without an explanation. Suggest a) changing all mentions to 'English army'; or b) giving it a brief explanation, possibly as a footnote. Given that I mention it in passing in a footnote B would be slightly easier for me, but I could readily tweak.
• Does Laura know that you consistently write "English Parliament", but "Scottish parliament"?
• I have made these changes. Feel free to revert or change anything you don't like.

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

OK:

• 'King of Britain'. You are right - as a legal entity, Britain didn't exist. However, the monarchs begged to differ: James VI and I was the first monarch to style himself Rex Brittanicus - he tried to get the title through the English Parliament, but it got nowhere, but it was also how Charles I liked to be styled, and when the Scots proclaimed Charles II king, and when they later crowned him, they did so as king of 'Great Britain, France and Ireland'. This is from Dow, p7: "On 5 February [1650], the Scots Parliament thererfore decided that Charles, whom it had just proclaimed King of Great Britain, France and Ireland, could not be admitted to the exercise of his office until he had given satisfaction concerning the security of religion, and the union of the kingdoms, according to the two Covenants." This is from Kenyon and Ohlmeyer, p32: "...after Charles I's execution, his son spent five years concentrating on regaining his thrones via Ireland and Scotland, and he was crowned (significantly as king of Great Britain and Ireland and not just as king of Scotland) at Scone on New Years Day 1651", and again on p40 "crowned king of 'Great Britain, France and Ireland'.

That seems fine. Thanks.

• Capitalisation: groan...
  • Royalist/roylalist - from a quick skim of my sources, they're not entirely consistent, but the more modern sources don't capitalise it. Dow did so in 1979; Woolrych, Fugrol and Wheeler, and the authors in Kenyon and Ohlmeyer, all writing in this century, do not. I'd propose that we do not, to maintain consistency with the more modern sources, but I'm not wedded to that if you feel differently.
  • Parliament/arians - similarly Dow (who seems to take the 'if in doubt, capitalise') approach consistently goes for a capital in all cases; Woolrych doesn't capitalise parliament, unless he's writing about a specific one (so the Rump or the Long Parliament get a cap). The authors in Kenyon and Ohlmeyer take a slightly different approach: Parliament, as a noun, always seems to get a capital, but words derived from it like parliamentarian or parliamentary do not. I think this is where my own inconsistencies have come in - it will just depend on which source I've been looking at when I write each sentence.
  • I'll add in that covenant is treated similarly. Dow - always capitalise all variants. More recent - capitalise the National Covenant, or Solemn League and Covenant, but don't capitalise covenanter, or non-specific phrases like 'both covenants'.
• L takes the view that it's important to stress that this is the New Model Army at war, rather than a more generic phrasing like 'the English Army', which in the context of the first civil war is a wooly and ill-defined phrase (since there were several English armies in the field). I'd be happy with just mentioning this once though, rather than repeating it, and to expand upon what it means in a footnote?

Personally I agree, but it seemed worth nailing down. Fine, let's use "New Model Army" whenever we refer to this particular army. I think that a sentence or two explaining what a New Model Army is in a footnote would be helpful.

I'll skim through your changes and see if there's anything I'm not fond of, but I rarely come across changes of yours that I don't approve of so I expect they'll be good 'uns. don't know how you want to deal with the capitalisation issue - I don't want to undo Harrias's good work, but my impression is that if we just go with capitalising all of them we'll be taking a rather old-fashioned approach. I'm not too bothered about that, provided we're consistent. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia aims to be internally consistent: Royalist/Parliamentarian is the prevalent form across the encyclopaedia. I don't agree that there is a particularly prevalent "modern" form; Royle (2004), Wanklyn (2004) both capitalise it, Gaunt (2014) does not. This might be better discussed at WT:MILHIST to achieve a consensus for use across our articles. Harrias ^talk 08:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with all but the first six words: is there a policy or guideline on this?

In this specific case, I have no personal preference and can see support for both sides in the sources I have accessed, although with a majority capitalising. Eg, Reid (2004) and Reese (2006), to mention two I have to hand and with have not yet been referenced.

So I will let you two try to reach consensus. But if you don't, I will support GS as co-author.

Proper names etc. Yeah it can be tricky, and look inconsistent, but that's a standard copy edit issue; eg we currently have "king" six times and "King" twice, and IMO all of them are correct.

Most of my changes are minor(ish), but I have removed one entire sentence. I think you will see why, but feel free to reinstate it or to discuss it here.

Harrias, thanks very much for the input, it is very, very much appreciated; not least with you being a period expert.

I will now look at "Prelude". Gog the Mild (talk) 10:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Harrias, FWIW, I just checked another couple of my sources. Barry Coward (written 1980, but mine is the 2003 3rd Edition) capitalises Royalist but not parliamentarian (which is a bit jarring when they're right next to each other in the same sentence!); Stewart (2016) capitalises neither (but she does consistently capitalise Covenanter). I do get the feeling there's a bit of a trend towards not capitalising the terms, but I'm not fussed about arguing for a change if that's the house style - happy to go with caps to maintain internal consistency. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Ultimately, it isn't my article, so I'll leave it up to you. I made the change before I noticed this discussion; I likely would not have changed it had I seen the query. To me, "Royalist" and "Parliamentarian", as used during the Civil War denote informal organisations, and thus should be capitalised, as opposed to "royalist", being anyone who supports the principle of monarchy and "parliamentarian", an expert in parliamentary matters. But looking not just through the sources, but also through various dictionaries online, it is clear that there is no consensus anywhere on this. At the end of the day, our articles remain at Roundhead and Cavalier, despite those terms rarely being used in modern scholarly work. So frankly, meh. Harrias ^talk 11:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Harrias, if you say that this is prevalent across the project, I'm happy to believe that, and I see the benefit of being consistent. I've seen what discussions about capitalisation can turn into on MOS talk pages, I'm not in the mood to start a potential bunfight and soak up hours of editors' time arguing over a few capital letters.

Thanks for the map below, by the way, excellent again! What does the diagonal line going through certain formations mean - is that cavalry, as opposed to infantry? GirthSummit _(blether) 15:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• "and to accept Presbyterianism on England". Should that be 'and to impose Presbyterianism on England' or 'and to accept Presbyterianism in England'?

• • Hmm - I think that should be accept Presbyterianism in England. I think I originally had impose there (hence the wording), but it's a bit too strong since a significant parliamentary faction actively wanted it - it was the king who was being forced to accept it against his own wishes, rather than him imposing it on others.

Done.

• "archipelagic": 'Of or pertaining to an archipelago'. 'Archiepiscopal'?
  • Do we not like archipelagic? It was intended, as in 'across all of the bits of British Isles, to include Scotland, England and Ireland', but perhaps it's a bit too jargony. 'acceptance of the Covenant across the three kingdoms'?

Ah, light dawns. It is that unusual a usage that I assumed that it was caused by your spellchecker being inventive. I have gone with your alternative suggestion.

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Map 3

6:30 am

Look, something useful, rather than me arguing! Harrias ^talk 12:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

You have not been arguing! You have been correcting our flaws and usefully, and tolerantly, testing our preconceptions. It's what we need; this is targeted for FAC, and goodness knows we will get plenty of that there. The map is great - thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Map 4

7:00 am

Is this it, or were you after more? Harrias ^talk 18:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Harrias, I had originally planned on four, but I seem to have gone a little finer grained than I intended. Any chance of a fifth to finish the set? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Go on then. Harrias ^talk 18:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Harrias; you are a star, thank you. Take Map 4, then:

• Remove the two Scottish cannon icons.
• Remove Stewart
• Shuffle Holborn, Pitscottie and Innes a little to the left and add arrows to each showing them retreating a little to the south of west.
• Remove the messy cavalry melee.
• Position the Reserve on the right flank of Lawers, with at arrow showing that it is about to get charged in the flank.
• Replace Lawers with a load of dots, showing that it has broken.

Reconstitute the two English cavalry brigades - probably best not to name them - with one facing the direction the Scottish cavalry have just fled in and the other about WSW and with a dashed arrow (if that is possible) pointing around the reserve and towards Innes. The dashed line is toi try and show that this happens after Lawers is taken in flank; I am not too sure about this, so feel free to use your initiative.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

GA nom

@Girth Summit: You have nominated this in the World history section, but it should be in the Warfare section; it can easily be changed by updating the subtopic parameter. Harrias ^talk 07:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Harrias, oops - sorry, overlooked that option, thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 07:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I wondered why it was taking so long to show up, but didn't think of looking there. Thanks Harrias. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Map 5

7:30 am (ish)

Et voila. Harrias ^talk 17:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

"The English roll up the Scottish infantry to win the battle before breakfast" – Not sure you'll get away with that at FA! Harrias ^talk 18:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

PS: What are your sources for pikemen being primarily offensive? Interested (not for a Wiki page particularly) in reading the contrasting view. Harrias ^talk 18:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Harrias, Reese: "then to send their pikemen forward to roll the enemy up".

Reid: "a vital role as shock troops".

I'll email you the pages.

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Harrias, "by 7.30 am. before the cows on the nearby had been milked, the … Scots … had been completely ruined. It was an amazing victory." Reese, p. 97. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)