Talk:Battle of Chalgrove Field

Rewrite
Most of this is copied from other articles, massively over detailed and often factually dubious. I've rewritten it. Robinvp11 (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I reassessed the article as B class. Djmaschek (talk) 02:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My mistake! C class. Second paragraph under Background is uncited. Please fix. Djmaschek (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks. Robinvp11 (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Moved from the middle of the previous section
<Battle of Chalgrove I’ve rewritten it declared Robinvp11 after assessing that the Battle of Chalgrove was massively over detailed. He also stated that the Battle of Chalgrove was factually dubious and copied from other articles. On what evidence has he based his opinion? Has he had published any academic articles on the Battle of Chalgrove? Oxoniensia vol 80 pub 2015 pp 27 – 39 ‘The Military and Political Importance of the Battle of Chalgrove 1643 Lester & Lester is a peer reviewed article from which Robinvp11 uses to expouse his opinion. Robinvp11 refers to Lester & Lester page 34 and wrongly says ‘Several senior officers supposedly in Thame to collect their Regiments’ wages, helped him form a number of ad hoc units: collected around 700 men. Stapleton set out in pursuit’. The Oxoniensia vol 80 page 34 paragraph three has, ‘The 700 - 800 principal officers who collecting their regiments’ pay from Essex were probably ordered by him to ride out to intercept the Royalists. A little time before 8 am these officers were dashing towards Tetsworth and onward.’ Refer to page 37 and the last paragraph has, ‘At around 10.15 am Sir Philip Stapleton drew up the fleeing men into a body near Clare crossroads.’

Robinvp11 quoted, ‘By now, the Parliamentary troops consisted of 200 cavalry, plus the dragoons.’- Ref 7 Stevenson and Carter 1973 p. 349. Lester & Lester Oxoniensia 2015 vol 80 refers to the Late Beating Up page 5 which has, ‘Just at this time ( being now about 9 a clock) we discerned several great Bodies of the Rebels Horse and Dragooners, coming down Golder-hill towards us; from Esington and Tame: who (together with those that had before skirmished with our Rear) drew down to the bottom of a great Close, or Pasture: ordering themselves there among trees beyond a great hedge, which parted that Close from our Field. My Lord of Essex’s Relation, here mentions Captain Sanders Troop, and Captain Buller with 50 commanded men; Captain Dundasses Troop of Dragooners, with some few of Colonel Melves. But surely these were not all their Forces.’ The additional forces making up the ‘several great Bodies of the Rebel Horse’ were those Principal Officers sent by Essex who left Thame before 8 am. These troops made up the eight Cornets of Horse that faced the Royalists with five troops of Reserves left by Warpsgrove House who fought at the Battle of Chalgrove.

Stevenson & Carter quoted extensively from Lord Nugent’s ‘Some memorials of John Hampden his Party and his Times’ pub 1832 and especially volume 2 page 431. Nugent has, ‘he (Hampden) had lain that night in Watlington’ the field headquarter where his regiment were quartered. On the same page Nugent states, ‘He (Hampden) instantly mounted’ his horse and rode off alone into to fight 2,000 royalists. How else could Nugent account for Col John Hampden being at the battle of Chalgrove without his officers and/or regiment?

Stevenson and Carter’s Oxoniensia article from which Robinvp11 cites extensively is naïve in the extreme. The Oxoniensia Vol 80 article cited by Robinvp11 is my work Lester & Lester.

The History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England’ first edition was published 1702 – 1704 and the title page states ‘Written by Edward Earl of Clarendon. The Earl of Clarendon died 9 December 1674 in Rouen. The writer has compiled a history of Clarendon’s Civil War papers for the Bodleian Library, Oxford. The 1702 publication was written by Laurence Hyde, the Earl’s son. Sir Edward Hyde (Clarendon from 1661) was in Oxford with King Charles I on the day of the Battle of Chalgrove. They interviewed the senior parliamentarian soldiers captured hours earlier from Chalgrove. They asked the question, ‘Why were senior officers fighting as troopers’ and Hyde the prolific journalist wrote down their account. A transcription of this original document is on the webpage Battle of Chalgrove it is among the copied articles that you describe. Would you kindly restore the Battle of Chalgrove to the Wiki website so that everyone can enjoy a true and faithful account of the Battle of Chalgrove? Regards, Lester D and Lester G John Hampdens Regiment (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)/>
 * New material goes below other material. Otherwise, you make it look like the previous section was a prophetic response to your post. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Your request to "restore the Battle of Chalgrove to the Wiki website" makes no sense and as explained multiple times to you in multiple locations, you do not WP:OWN this article, Wikipedia is a collaborative ongoing process and there is absolutely no duty upon any of us to restore the article to your preferred version. Theroadislong (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If I could just add a few points here;
 * (1) First and foremost, this article is about the Battle, not John Hampden; the original contained huge chunks of speculation on whether he died from an exploding pistol or a gunshot. Which is irrelevant to the battle itself;
 * (2) I'm always happy to reconsider my own editing and I have a good record of doing exactly that, but its hard to work out exactly what the objection is;
 * (3) I tried to balance the different accounts; I can see why you prefer your own to other 'naïve' accounts but I'm sure you'll understand why others might question your neutrality;
 * (4) Why don't you create a Wiki article on John Hampden's regiment; then you could write whatever you want. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just for completeness, doesn't need further discussion, but wanted this to be on here.
 * Much of the argument about numbers etc relates to the campaign in the early 90s to have Chalgrove re-designated a 'battle', rather than 'skirmish.'
 * While ultimately accepted, the various agencies state 'numbers are disputed', especially those actually involved in the fighting;
 * Historic England did so, 'despite the relatively small numbers' because (a) it is unusual in being a cavalry battle, (dubious, because there are loads of other examples), and (b) Hampden's death (again, dubious; on that basis, shooting down the plane carrying Yamamoto in 1943 would qualify as an air battle)
 * Hence, anyone involved in that campaign has a clear interest in (a) bigging up the numbers, and (b) focusing on Hampden. Which makes sense if you consider the original article.
 * Much of the information cited comes from the Royalist propaganda sheet, Mercurius Aulicus, with selected quotes from Clarendon. In balancing the various accounts (ie the Lesters and Stevenson Carter), I'm simply following Historic England and others.Robinvp11 (talk) 09:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Information added by user:John Chalgrove

 * "Before continuing with the ‘Battle’ go to George Nugent-Grenville, 2nd Baron Nugent and read ‘Nugent the Historian’. Lord Nugent has published total fiction regarding the battle of Chalgrove. Stevenson and Carter Oxoniensia vol 38 1973 is based on Nugent’s interpretation and is cited here extensively which leaves this article with questions to answer. Macaulay, Warburton, Drinkwater, Hugh Ross Williamson, John Adair and English Heritage Battlefield Report : Chalgrove 1643 - 1995 rely near exclusively upon Nugent’s fictitious account."
 * "Wikipedia’s administrators could review the pages in ‘history’ from 19 April 2019 and earlier under the name of John Hampdens Regiment and re-instate them. These pages were consigned to ‘history’ and replaced with this interpretation of Chalgrove which has proven to be a fictional account."

This was originally added to the article page. I have removed it from the article page and placed it here for discussion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * This is another attempt to insert material rejected previously (under the name John Hampdens Regiment). Robinvp11 (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, I just figured I would let editors more familiar with this article deal with this issue.--Kansas Bear (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)