A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 13, 2007, November 13, 2008, November 13, 2009, November 13, 2014, November 13, 2015, November 13, 2017, November 13, 2018, November 13, 2020, and November 13, 2021. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Turnham Green: This should be a geographical page first, then a historical page regarding the battle. This page is linked from A4 road (Great Britain). The area is the commercial (retail) center of Chiswick in West London.
This section has no references, and seems factually questionable. Locusts are not found in the UK, earwigs would hardly constitute a threat to the progress of a conflict surely? Bwcajp ( talk) 14:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure why I'm the first to write on this talk page, the article was already tagged for expansion.
I am repeating this question on the advice of another user, from Talk:First English Civil War: This article states that the Royalist and Parliamentarian armies did not in fact fight at this battle - it was a stand-off. This is supported by Michael Robbins's book "Middlesex" pages 94-95, which states that the Royalist withdrawal was on 13 November 1642.
However, Warwick Draper's "Chiswick" pages 66-68 and 202-207 quotes in full a contemporary source saying that Prince Rupert returned after the main withdrawal and did fight the Parliamentarians on 12 November, with the loss of 800 Royalist and 120 Parliamentarian soldiers. The source is listed in Draper's appendix as being from a contemporary pamphlet in the British Museum, with spelling modernised and 'Rupert' substituted for 'Robert'. The modernisation etc is attributed to a Mr. Whitear.
Does anyone know what is happening here? Is the pamphlet now discredited, or is it simply unsupported by other documents? The wording of the pamphlet is very partial, and I would expect exaggeration of the numbers killed, but is the battle itself imaginary? If it is discredited, perhaps a note to that effect would reassure any readers (like me) who are very far from expert in this field. Patche99z 15:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
[M]any officers wanted to open peace negotiations, contrary to Rupert's desire to carry on to London; the King agreed with the officers, and the Earl of Essex was able to ready the defence of London with the Parliamentarian army.
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 13, 2007, November 13, 2008, November 13, 2009, November 13, 2014, November 13, 2015, November 13, 2017, November 13, 2018, November 13, 2020, and November 13, 2021. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Turnham Green: This should be a geographical page first, then a historical page regarding the battle. This page is linked from A4 road (Great Britain). The area is the commercial (retail) center of Chiswick in West London.
This section has no references, and seems factually questionable. Locusts are not found in the UK, earwigs would hardly constitute a threat to the progress of a conflict surely? Bwcajp ( talk) 14:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure why I'm the first to write on this talk page, the article was already tagged for expansion.
I am repeating this question on the advice of another user, from Talk:First English Civil War: This article states that the Royalist and Parliamentarian armies did not in fact fight at this battle - it was a stand-off. This is supported by Michael Robbins's book "Middlesex" pages 94-95, which states that the Royalist withdrawal was on 13 November 1642.
However, Warwick Draper's "Chiswick" pages 66-68 and 202-207 quotes in full a contemporary source saying that Prince Rupert returned after the main withdrawal and did fight the Parliamentarians on 12 November, with the loss of 800 Royalist and 120 Parliamentarian soldiers. The source is listed in Draper's appendix as being from a contemporary pamphlet in the British Museum, with spelling modernised and 'Rupert' substituted for 'Robert'. The modernisation etc is attributed to a Mr. Whitear.
Does anyone know what is happening here? Is the pamphlet now discredited, or is it simply unsupported by other documents? The wording of the pamphlet is very partial, and I would expect exaggeration of the numbers killed, but is the battle itself imaginary? If it is discredited, perhaps a note to that effect would reassure any readers (like me) who are very far from expert in this field. Patche99z 15:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
[M]any officers wanted to open peace negotiations, contrary to Rupert's desire to carry on to London; the King agreed with the officers, and the Earl of Essex was able to ready the defence of London with the Parliamentarian army.