Talk:First Battle of St Albans

Numbers
According to Alison Weir's "Lancaster and York: The Wars of the Roses", the Yorkist army composed of 7000 men, Warwick's, Plantagent's & Salisbury's combined. Should this be changed? UFOash (talk) 14:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

'It was one hour' in the 'see alsos' - what? Jackiespeel (talk) 11:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Dubious
The aftermath section states this battle was "was relatively minor in military terms". What is the justification for this? Both armies were substantial for the time, and three of the Lancastrian leaders were killed in the fighting; it is also a (relatively rare) example of urban warfare in the medieval period. Anybody have any ideas? Xyl 54 (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The scale of the fighting, however, was not that great, in that the action was over relatively quickly and many of those killed were caught in what was, essentially, a rout after the defences had been outflanked. Guthrum (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Guthrum here, because I'm currently doing a History A-Level and while the class does not go into great detail regarding the actual battles (more the political aftermath), it is noted that the First Battle of St. Albans is more of a skirmish due to the limited space of the streets, and the relative ease with which Warwick was able to attack down the middle. It's certainly not a pitched battle, as the first pitched battle of the War of the Roses was the Battle of Towton (if my education and memory serves correctly). If you want, we could edit this to say this battle was not a pitched battle, or something signifying it was a generally smaller-scale battle than those that came later in the War of the Roses. --SRCollier (talk) 10:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Your memory fails you and needs to be grounded for a week :) after St Albans I, there was no military action until 1459—the Battle of Blore Heath in September—and then it was thick and fast for a few months, until Towton. Mind you, I agree that any article on St Albans I that that doesn't cite C. A. J. Armstrong's last word on the subject is severely lacking. I've been meaning to address this failure for some time; let me know whether you wish to make this a featured article at some time. As to the original point, yes, it was clearly a series of targetted assassinations, following which the battle swiftly ceased. Hope all is well!  ——  SerialNumber  54129  10:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC) :
 * Firstly, thanks for the reply - sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you. As I am very new to Wikipedia (this is the first major contribution I've made), what exactly does being a Featured Article entail? Does it make it a target for improvements? Also, I don't seem to be able to find C. A. J. Armstrong's source, so I'm afraid I can't edit that one into the page. Sorry!

Serious error in entry
"Shakespeare's historic play Henry VI, Part 2 ends with the conclusion of this battle."

No. Henry VI Part 3 ends with this battle. Another giant error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.252.220 (talk) 05:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I think you might've gotten the First Battle of St Albans mixed up with the Second Battle of St Albans. Quoting the Wikipedia page for Henry VI, Part 2, we see that at the end of the plot synopsis, "A battle is fought at St Albans in which the Duke of Somerset is killed by Richard, and Lord Clifford by York. With the battle lost, Margaret persuades the distraught King to flee the battlefield and head to London. She is joined by Young Clifford, who vows revenge on the Yorkists for the death of his father. The play ends with York, Edward, Richard, Warwick and Salisbury setting out in pursuit of Henry, Margaret and Clifford." However, the Second Battle of St Albans does crop up in Henry VI, Part 3, as news of the Yorkist defeat is mentioned by Warwick during the play. "After the battle, as Edward and Richard lament York's death, Warwick brings news that his own army has been defeated by Margaret's at the Second Battle of St Albans, and the King has returned to London, where, under pressure from Margaret, he has revoked his agreement with York." - SRCollier (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement about the Percy family
I wonder if the middle of the statement "The Percys were, and still are to this day, the Earls of Northumberland" is really needed. I am not sure it is relevant to know that the Percy family currently holds the Earldom (which has be supplanted in importance by the Dukedom of Northumberland, which the Earl also holds, in any case). The statement also suggest a continuous hold by the Percy family, but from 1461-1470 it was held by the Percys rival John Neville and was also not held by the family from 1537 until 1557. After that the male line of the Percys died out in 1670. From 1683-1716 the Earl of Northumberland was George FitzRoy later 1st Duke of Northumberland an illegitimate son of Charles II who had no connection to the Percys. He had no hier and the earldom again died out when he died. The current Percys are actually decedents of the next Earl Algernon Seymour, 7th Duke of Somerset who had Percy ancestry, but was not a male line descendent. His son-in-law Hugh Smithson inherited the tittle by special remainder at which point he renamed himself Percy. Thus I think "Percys were the Earls of Northumberland" would be better. Dunarc (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)