Talk:Battle of Dunbar (1650)/Archive 1

indentured servants

 * and the survivers were sold into slavery.

Was it as indentured servants to the colonies? If so perhaps the wording should be changed. Was it a similar fate for those Scots captured at Worcester? If so a simialr note should be added to that battle Philip Baird Shearer 11:25, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A guick google later: this source: http://historynet.com/mh/blbattleofdunbar/index3.html says ''The English government shipped the survivors to the North American colonies of Virginia and New England. Sixteen-year-old John Cragin, an ancestor of the author, was one of those shipped to Massachusetts as an indentured servant.'' Also http://www.members.tripod.com/graytim/Saugus.htm -- Philip Baird Shearer 11:36, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Was an indentured servant not a slave? These people usually had their right ear chopped off, and were bought and sold into a life of work without pay. Sounds like a slave to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.15.21 (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Scottish or English
The infobox says Scottish Civil War, the text says Third English Civil War. Obviously they overlap, but this is just flat contradiction. Clarification please? :Supergolden:: 15:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

There is considerable confusion-reflected in Wikipedia-on the proper title to be given to the wars that engulfed the British Isles between 1642 and 1651. Older accounts will refer simply to the English Civil War, although it's now more common-and accurate-to use the term the War of the Three Kingdoms (this still leaves out Wales!) Although the so-called third English Civil War did involve Englishman against Englishman it was largely a fight between the English Commonwealth and the Kingdom of Scotland. The Scottish Civil War should refer only to the conflict between Royalists and Covenanters between 1644 and 1645. Rcpaterson 00:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Moderately reorganized the first paragraph to try to clarify these issues, with additional links to existing Wikipedia pages on the Commonwealth of England, Charles II and Charles I, the Union of the Crowns, Parliament of Scotland and the broader historical context of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms.

In effect, this battle is rightly considered decisive in the Third English Civil War because the stakes included the Commonwealth of England versus Charles II's claim to the throne of England (inclusive of a claim to France) and Ireland, held by his father, as well as that of Scotland. Charles' grandfather, James VI and I, had been King of Scots, and later King of England (France) and Ireland, but he had aspirations to unify England and Scotland at least at the level of the monarchy and began using the titles King of Great Britain, France and Ireland by proclamation. In effect, to turn a personal union into an executive and Real union by Union of the Crowns. (There is extensive Wikipedia coverage on these concepts.)

On 5 February 1649, the Parliament of Scotland proclaimed Charles II King of Great Britain, France and Ireland, not merely King of Scots. The article on Charles II has a link to the Records of the Parliament of Scotland showing the original text. I lack the skills to reproduce it in this article but welcome anyone doing so. By doing this 5 days after the English Parliament had had Charles I beheaded, effectively immediately given messenger travel time, the Parliament of Scotland had done 3 things: effectively recognize the immediate, uninterrupted succession of the Crown per normal constitutional procedure; validate and restate Charles' claim to all the thrones held by his father; and endorse the Union of the Crowns once again. In practice, to decline to recognize the Commonwealth of England ruled by its Parliament, tantamount to a declaration of war on England.

Because the Scots did also compel Charles to sign both the Scottish National Covenant and the Anglo-Scottish Solemn League and Covenant, as well as later crowning him with the historic [and technically never suspended] title King of Scots at Scone, these events have to be considered all at the same time part of the Third English Civil War, the Scottish civil wars over the Covenant, and the all-encompassing Wars of the Three Kingdoms, and it is relevant to mention both the title Parliament proclaimed for Charles in 1649 and the one they proclaimed in 1651 at Scone.

Hope people are happy with the one-para change in the text and this lengthy explanation. Random noter (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Background or result?
The first sentence under background mentions Charles being crowned in 1651. Then the article purports to give this as reason England chose to invade. But how can the Battle of Dunbar, in 1650, be part of this invasion if it happened BEFORE the coronation? We either have wrong dates or uncorrelated events. More research seems necessary... --Erc1965 04:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The Scots' declaration of support for Charles and their willingness to reinstall him on the throne of England if he accepted their terms was known before the formal coronation ceremony took place. Kim Traynor 00:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not more common to use the term `War of the Three Kingdoms'. The United Kingsom Civil War would be better. The established modern term is `British Civil War(s)' which although it excludes Ireland is the best compromise between the  non-specific `Civil War' (which could be American, Russian, Chinese, Irish, Spanish, Greek etc), the over-exclusive `English Civil War', and the hopelessly outdated `Great Rebellion'. The War of the Three Kingdoms is not bad but it excludes Wales, and sounds less like something from British and Irish history and more like something from ancient China. Why not be really bold and call it the United Kingdom Revolutionary War (which it was)? But that might upset the Establishment. In general this article is biassed by Scottish nationalist sentiment, and lacks detail. It needs re-writing by a professional historian without a Lochaber axe to grind. Fore exmple, the Scottish captives were misstreated, but by the laws of their time they were traitors and were liable to the death penalty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barney Bruchstein (talk • contribs) 16:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

That last comment is very interesting for a Scotsman to read - they were 'traitors'. To whom exactly? This is the same charge that was levelled at William Wallace. The Scots were supporting Charles II. They were not subject to the rule of the English Parliament. The fact that Scotland was a separate country still seems to be something some English people have difficulty grasping. Kim Traynor 00:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

'Dunbar Martyrs'
I think this link should be removed, at least from the body text. The site is highly pov. It depicts Dunbar as part of an aggressive English invasion, when in fact it was the Scots who sought to invade England, restore an absolutist monarch and end religious pluralism. Yet another case of Scots whining about their mythical victimhood. Banksmeister general (talk) 11:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Steady on! Your point about the aggressive intentions of the Scots is sound, but lamenting a great loss of life is hardly claiming victimhood. The maltreatment by neglect of prisoners-of-war at that time in history is in no way surprising, but it seems quite shocking purely iea through which the prisoners were marched had been laid waste by Leslie (i.e. themselves) so it is hardly surprising that tehre was littlen human terms that so many died over the relatively short distance between Dunbar and Durham. There must have been a callous disregard for their welfare by their so-called Protestant brethren. Kim Traynor 00:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The ar if any food available. Also before the battle the mutilated bodies of an English cavalry patrol had been dumped back at the main army, indicating they had been tortured.--Streona (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The area through which the prisoners were marched had been laid waste by Leslie (i.e. themselves) so it is hardly surprising that tehre was little if any food available. Also before the battle the mutilated bodies of an English cavalry patrol had been dumped back at the main army, indicating they had been tortured.--Streona (talk) 21:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Background Paragraph
I was under the impression that the Scottish soldiers were professional and well trained but compared to the English were poorly armed. --BRFC78 (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Grammar problems were my fault. Saying soory instead of sorry out carelessness. --BRFC78 (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC) THE SCOTS WANTED CALVINISM AND FELT LET DOWN BY CROMWELLS PURITANS,WITH CHARLES THE SECOND OFFERING MOST OF WHAT THE SCOTS WANTED WHETHER HE MEANT IT IF HE EVER CAME TO POWER IT WAS TEMPTING TO HELP THE ROYALISTS TO IMPOSE THE COVENANT WHICH THE SCOTTISH PROTETANTS HELD DEARLY TO THERE HEARTS.CROMWELLS ARMY WAS VERY FORTUNATE TO WIN AT DUNBAR.U — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.160.9 (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Albanian?
The English Parliamentarian forces under Oliver Cromwell defeated a Scottish, French and Albanian army commanded by David Leslie which was loyal to King Charles II,....

It is rather unbelievable that Albanian troops were involved. At least I ve found no source about Albanian soldiers in that battle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.97.0.52 (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Dunbar (1650). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081221034516/http://www.durhamcathedral.co.uk/history to http://www.durhamcathedral.co.uk/history

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

"Dunbar Martyrs" site
This is clearly a blog and thus not a reliable source. Even a cursory reading shows it to be a highly biased source as well. I'm going to delete it for the list of references. FOARP (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)