Talk:Scotland in the Wars of the Three Kingdoms

Nice article, Jdorney. Congratulations! -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:43, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Cheers! If anyone has anything more or corrections to add, please go ahead Jdorney

Scottish Civil War-Corrections and Amendments
I've edited this article to eliminate a number of errors, both of fact and interpretation. These are as follows:

1. The Scottish Civil War officially came to an end with the surrender of the King in 1646, not 1647.

2. Charles never attempted to impose Episcopacy (it is terminologically incorrect to describe this as 'Anglicanism' in relation to Scotland) on 'Presbyterian' Scotland for the simple reason that the Church of Scotland already had an Episcopal structure. Bishops were only outlawed, and Presbyterianism established, after the Glasgow General Assembly in November, 1638. The National Covenant was specifically directed against innovations that had not been examined and tested by free parliaments and assemblies of the church. Unfortunately, I've come across this annoying error in a number of Wikipedia pieces dealing with this whole period.

3. In reference to the Bishops' Wars 'impose his will' has been substituted for 're-conquer', for the obvious reason that the country had never been conquered in the first place. Besides Charles' strategy during the First Bishops' War was essentially based on a massive bluff.

4. The Solemn League and Covenant was signed in 1643, but the Scottish army did not enter England until January, 1644.

5. 'The Scots promptly handed him over to the English Parliament in return for a large cash payment.' Another major error! Charles was taken to the Scots' base at Newcastle, where he remained for the best part of a year. During this time repeated attempts were made to persuade him to sign the Covenant, with no sucess. Unable to take him north into a politically volatile Scotland, he was then handed over to the commissioners of Parliament in 1647. The Scots then received part payment for the service of their army (the full sum was never paid.)

6. Montrose left for Norway in 1646, not 1647.

7. Cromwell did not cross from Ireland to Scotland. He returned to England in May 1650 to take full command of the New Model Army, before proceeding north.

8. Cromwell did not lay siege to Edinburgh. Rather he and Leslie manoeuvred and counter-manoeuvred around the city. Finally, his army weakened by sickness, he ordered a withdrawal to his base at Dunbar, not a retreat to England.

9. The suggestion that Leslie was ordered into battle at Dunbar by the General Assembly is a myth. He himself decided that the English had been sufficiently weakened to allow him to risk a full-scale engagement. It was a serious miscalculation.

10. It was General John Lambert who won the battle of Inverkeithing. Cromwell remained south of the Forth, ready to advance towards Stirling. The intention was to force Charles out of his defensive positions in central Scotland. Charles was left with a stark choice: retreat north pursued by Cromwell, or risk an invasion of England.

11. The Glorious Revolution took place in 1688, not 1689.

Rcpaterson 01:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi RC. Those look like good changes. re the Episcoplian question, if you see this error, you should change it, remember that errors appear on wikipedia due to gaps in user's knowledge (in this case mine) and should be cleaned up by users with more info. That's how this thing works.

Two very minor quibbles with your edits. First, while the King surrendered in 1646, MacColla held out in Kintyre until the following year, when he left for Ireland. Montrose subsequently mounted a royalist expedition in 1649. So can we really say that the struggle between Scottish Royalists and Covenanters ended in 1646?

Second, re Leslie at Dunbar, it may be a myth that he was orderr into battle by the general assembly, but it is a very widely reported one. If the evidence suggests otherwise, that's ok, but I think the text should also expalin there there are allegations of political/religious interference in his decisions. Jdorney 15:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Good Evening! Thanks for your observations. I have, in point of fact, changed the misconception about the organization of the church in Scotland whenever I have come across it (a number of times!)

The period from 1642 to 1651/2 was, as you obviously know, a term of tremendous political instability throughout the British Isles, and you will probably find small bush fires at any point during this time, even in periods of 'peace.' However, one of the conditions of Charles' surrender to the Scots army at Newark in May 1646 was that he ordered all forces operating in his name to lay down arms. It was under these instructions that Montrose left Scotland. Maccolla is a slightly different case, because he fought first and foremost for his clan and family, but I have a feeling that he was driven out of Kintyre in 1646. (I can not check this because I do not have the references to hand at the moment!) Besides, by this time, his forces were largly reduced to a hard core of Irish troops.

Montrose did not land in Orkney until the spring of 1650 (not 1649). His abortive invasion of the mainland was a small-scale sideshow rather than a wholesale renewal of the civil war.

I have said elsewhere that once a myth is up and running it is almost impossible to knock it down. The story about the General Assembly and the battle of Dunbar has been repeated ad nauseam, but it is totally untrue. I carried out extensive research on the Dunbar campaign for a book I wrote on the Covenanter Wars, and found no evidence of any attempt to interfere with Leslie's field operations (offical purges of the army prior to the campaign were quite a different thing.) I  have no wish to set this story up again myself, but I would have no objection to you making some reference to it if you want. Best wishes. Rcpaterson 23:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, on closer inspection you're right about those Montrose MacColla dates, mea culpa!

I'm going to add a small reference to the general assembly interference thing, see what you think.

Jdorney 09:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine.

Incidentally, I left a response you your question on David Leslie on the Battle of Philiphaugh talk page (having just remembered that I came across your signature elsewhere!). Rcpaterson 22:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

page title?
Is this page title appropriate? I've never heard the Scottish struggle named as simply "the Scottish Civil War". The contemporary struggle in England was obviously the "English Civil War," and the conflict as a whole seems now to be called the "War of the Three Kingdoms." I believe the Irish conflict of the same time period is the "Irish Rebellion." Seems to me that this should be at Scottish Civil War (1642-1646), or some such - google search on "Scottish Civil War" -wikipedia brings up a book about the Bruces and the Balliols in the 14th century. The Conflict following the deposition of Mary Stuart was also a Scottish Civil War, I should think, and quite a notable one. Is there any evidence that the primary referent for "Scottish Civil War" is this conflict, or is this merely a result of trying to parallel this struggle with the English one? john k 01:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

In writings on the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, it is always called the Scottish Civil War. Whether it should have the sole claim to this in Scottish history, I couldn't say for certain. Another problem is that part of this article, dealing with 1650 onwards, is actually referring to a war between England and Scotland. However it seems messy to separate them. We could call it Scotland in the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, but this seems very cumbersome to me.

The Irish Rebellion of 1641, deals only with the early months of the war in Ireland. The remaining years 1642-53, are referred to on wikipedia as the Irish Confederate Wars, although they have also been called the "Wars of Religion", the "Eleven Years War", the "Irish Civil War" (though this name is now almost always used to refer to the 1922-1923 war) by historians and several other names. The only consensus on naming this war is for its final stage, the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland, 1649-53.

Jdorney 15:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * None of the sources I have consulted use the title "Scottish Civil War", instead they simply treat the fighting in Scotland as an extension of the English civil war. This term appears to be a WP:Fringe theory. FOARP (talk) 13:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Campaign Box
Is it possable to update the campaign box to include the Battle of Carbisdale (1650) and the Battle of Stirling (1648). Both are historically important. After the battle of Stirling in 1648 the two opposing sides made peace bringing together the forces of Campbell the Marquess of Argyll and the Earl of Lanericks forces. Both sides were covenantors. The battle of Carbisdale in 1650 was even more important as it was the final defeat of James Graham, 1st Marquess of Montrose.

The campign box currently looks like this and I was hoping to add these two battles

mjgm84 12:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If you follow this link Campaignbox Scottish Civil War to the template you can then edit the template source to include those battles. Should be straight forward, but give me a shout if you need any help. Thanks/wangi 12:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Scottish Civil War?
Is the title of this article not misleading? When this become the Scottish Civil War? The only book to have the title "Scottish Civil War" refers to the Wars of Scottish Independence. This seems like a wiki neologism ... anglicizing the terminology of Scottish history. There are loads of Scottish civil wars ... no reason for this one to get that title. The page should be moved to a established historical term. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Most of the Wars of Scottish Independence in the 14th century were against the English the only Civil War at that time was a brief conflict between Robert the Bruce and John Comyn, rival to the thrown. As for Scotland in the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, in the 17th century it is actuall more often reffered to as the Scottish Civil War although it was part of the same war as the English Civil War. Which technically went on in Scotland until 1654. "Wars of the Three Kingdoms" could be incorrect because the Kingdom of Scotland, England and Ireland were all under the same Crown which is why the term "Civil War" is used. Psycotics1454 18:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * However, War of the Three Kingdoms does at least have modern usage behind it and is, compared to the other terms, less misleading. No name is going to be perfect. "Scottish Civil War" does not appear to be the common name for the fighting in Scotland during the English civil wars, which is treated as an extension of the civil wars into Scotland.FOARP (talk) 13:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Should we consider clarifying these wars' respective relationships to the English Civil War clearly in the introduction? CessnaMan1989 (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Culloden pic
The Battle of Culloden pic is inappropriate here becase it is from a different war. The wars of the three kingdoms was in the mid 17th century. Culloden was 100 years later in the mid 18th century. Furthermore the Highland charge was not pioneerd in the 17th century, it had been long in use centuries before. 193.195.194.165 (talk) 12:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Battle pages
I just made a few improvements to the Battle of Kilsyth page, and was wondering if some people could make a push to improve the pages concerning the Scottish aspect of the war. The Kilsyth page needs a decent photo, plus some more references, and a little more information on the commanders and order of battle. I'm sure some of the other battle pages need similar work. The pages on the units and commanders of the campaign could also do with some work. So this is basically a request for people to do some work on this area - it badly needs updating to bring it up to the same standard as pages on the Civil War in England and Ireland. Mathewannis (talk) 03:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change in Result box
"Covenanters defeat Royalists but are themselves defeated by an English Parliamentarian conquest of Scotland in 1650-51."

Shouldn't that read "...of Lowland Scotland in 1650-51." as the highlands were not conquered.86.171.240.101 (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Wars of the Three Kingdoms and the Interregnum
I am setting up a new Military history task force at WikiProject Wars of the Three Kingdoms and the Interregnum all welcome to join. -- PBS (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Timeline
I just added a timeline. I freely confess that I am not a scholar of this time period or location. I was having trouble making sense of all the disparate articles, and thought others might have similar problems. I would be perfectly content for someone more knowledgeable to take over. – Smallus Editus (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)