Talk:London lobsters

Lobsters
I would say the fact that redocats were called lobsters, as well as Hasselrigs curraissers, is not related and just coincidental. The Curraissers would have been called lobster because of their armour's resemblence to a lobsters armour like exosekelton, whereas the redcoats would have been called lobsters because they were red...like a lobster.


 * I agree and have removed the assertion, which was not referenced in any way. Urselius (talk) 08:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Any more Info ?
Quite interested in this unit, and the performance of their armour.


 * Their performance in battle was rather patchy, they tended to rely on their pistols and were decidedly slow-moving. At Roundaway Down the lighter-equipped Royalist cavalry broke them because they stood still and the Royalists charged them at a gallop with drawn swords. The breastplate, shoulder-pieces and sometimes helmet were usually pistol-proof, but only the breastplate could be made musket-proof by wearing a 'placate' or reinforce (essentially a second breastplate), which made the armour very heavy indeed. Urselius (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on London lobsters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120905221927/http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/content/imported-docs/a-e/cheriton.pdf to http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/content/imported-docs/a-e/cheriton.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Recent Edits
The article previously claimed the Lobsters were the lineal descendant of the Life Guards, based on the assumption the unit formed by Haselrig in 1650 was the same as that formed in 1642. This is incorrect, not "ridiculous sophistry".

Until the 18th century, regiments were considered the personal property of their colonels, and thus took his name, which changed when command changed. The unit formed in 1642 was absorbed into the New Model Army in April 1645 as Butler's Horse, when Haselrig relinquished command under the Self Denying Ordnance. It then continued as a separate unit.

The makes it different from the entirely new unit formed by Haselrig in 1650, which also bears his name because he was its colonel. If you think this is wrong, please supply the reference. Robinvp11 (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)