Talk:Second English Civil War

"Horse"
This article on at least seven occasions uses the word "horse" to mean what I believe to be roughly a synonym for "cavalry". This usage of the word "horse" (plural?) does not exist at all in American English. Is this word actually in the lexicon of native speakers of contemporary British English or Scots? Or is it something specific to this period, or this particular war?

I am not at all attempting to claim it was not the term used in the 17th century; however, to the American reader, phraseology like "the local horse of Durham" or "all the restless energy of Langdale's horse was unable to dislodge Lambert" sounds, at best, like someone attempting to affect "An Ye Olde Englische Acsentt"; and at worst (and more importantly) its meaning is exceedingly opaque. I simply have to guess that "the local horse of Durham" does not refer to a single, tired old steed used collectively by the people of Durham to plow their fields prior to unexpected conscription into the the Second English Civil War, and must attempt to infer it more likely means somewhere between two and 100,000 men mounted on horses.

While that much can be gathered by the discerning reader from context, it remains a mystery why the bulk of Durham's militia (which I assume were "infantry", i.e., not mounted on horses) apparently were completely absent from that incident; at least, I assume this turn of phrase does means they were not present, as elsewhere the phrase "horse and foot" is used to mean a combination of infantry and cavalry. which is at least a more transparent analogy. But, to the point: there appears to be an assumption in this article that the reader is completely familiar with knowledge of this particular turn of phrase, and furthermore is fully pre-equipped with detailed knowledge of 17th century battle tactics specific to Britain in the 17th century. I am most assuredly not so equipped.

The New Model Army article describes, in minute detail, what is meant by "Horse", and it is indeed not only particular to the period, but describes the Horse in detail down to matters of of dress, battle tactics, behavior, and reputation, as to be distinguished from dragoons. (The word "dragoon" does exist in American English, yet "horse" (plural) does not). The definition in that article in fact specifically defines its usage of "Horse" characteristics in terms of forces under direct command of Cromwell. It would appears this article uses the term far more broadly, but that too is unclear.

If it is important to use this particular phraseology, for some reason, I think an explicit definition of the term is warranted. Otherwise, it is a mistake to assume "historical voice" (and probably counter to some Wikipedia rule or guideline, somewhere) in imitation of those one is describing, which I suspect is partially what is occurring herein. Should that be that case, this term should should be replaced with a more contemporaneously understandable word or phrase (to an international reader), such as "cavalry", "men on horseback", "mounted battalion", etc.

Gsnxn (talk) 12:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

link to 3rd June
The link to 3rd June has been reinstated. I can't find anything on that page relevant to the Civil War. What's the point of the link? Rjm at sleepers 20:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The text on this page is from GREAT REBELLION article in the Encyclopaedia Britannica Eleventh Edition, and is a more detailed account of the Second Civil War than is possible in the Wikipedia English Civil War page. The date comes from that source,  and is confirmed on the George Joyce page on Wikipedia. A Google of [3 June 1647 Joyce King] returns lots of web pages confirming the date. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh yes to answer why dates is linked have a look at the "my preferences" tab at the top of the page, because it is possible to set how linked dates appear either as 3 June or June 3 (if these two look the same to you then you have a setting under that tab). --Philip Baird Shearer 21:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - I didn't express myself very clearly. I have no problem with saying the date was June 3 or with the format. I just wondered why anyone would want to go to a page containing a lot of unrelated events that happened to occur on the same date in different years. But I've just realised that if the date is not linked, the user preferences don't work. That's a pity - I wonder if the same thing could be done with a template. Rjm at sleepers 07:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And I am sure that some people look at "what links here" to add information to the date articles if the information on the linked pages seems interesting. --Philip Baird Shearer 07:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ireland as part of Royalist Strategy
I wonder if this article should have a brief section on Ireland. Personally, I don't really think it is possible to understand the Royalist strategy in the Second Civil War without reference to Ireland.

For example, the return of Ormonde to Ireland and the subsequent peace of 1648-49; the use of Southern Irish ports as privateer bases by Prince Rupert; and of course the eventual Cromwellian invasion, influenced in part by these developments.

A short section on the developments in Ireland would also provide something of a connective link between the Cromwellian Invasion of Ireland and the Civil Wars in England.

Inchiquin (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. The article is a copy of paragraph from the EB (1911) article and when I wrote it I never expected that it would not be edited mercilessly. Providing it is properly sourced I think that the article would be improved providing the new paragraphs stay focused and do not stray into events post the end of the Second Civil War as defined in the article. As you will know the English wars can be broken into two or three wars, we have chosen to go with three but not all historians do that and only have two wars. --PBS (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Main Protagonists
The 'Prelude' section defines the background to the war as the breach between Army and Parliament, but most of the body of the article is taken up with Parliamentary suppression of Royalist uprisings. Clivemacd (talk) 22:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It was the New Model Army that did the fighting, but the New Model Army remains Parliament's army. However members of Parliament were split, many Presbyterians in Parliament supported the Scottish Presbyterians, and wanted to do a deal with King Charles, hence the reason for Pride's Purge after the war was over.
 * Winston Churchill summed it up thus:

"The Story of the Second English Civil War is short and simple. King, Lords and Commons, landlords, merchants, the City and the countryside, bishops and presbyters, the Scottish army, the Welsh people, and the English Fleet, all now turned against the New Model Army. The Army beat the lot!"


 * -- PBS (talk) 02:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Second English Civil War. 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/20120729022502/http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/CultureAndLeisure/Castlesandmuseums/Castles/PontefractCastle/history.htm to http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/CultureAndLeisure/Castlesandmuseums/Castles/PontefractCastle/history.htm

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) 17:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)