Talk:Marston Moor order of battle

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Army of the Solemn League and Covenant

There were a number of Covenanter regiments missing from this section. I have added in these and tied them into the Lumsden Key as quoted by Young, Murdoch & Grosjean et al through the use of the lettering system used on that key. Where there is discrepancy to eye-witness accounts I have mentioned these. For example Lord Gordon's regiment does not appear on that key (I suspect it is the regiment attributed to Fairfax on the first line of the van. As conjecture I have ommitted that.) However, Lumsden himself claims to have continued to fight at the battle after Louden's were routed. I have thus brigaded them along side Louden. Happy to discuss this further. I have cited Murdoch & Grosjean. If I owned a copy I would go through Edward Furgol's Regimental History of the Covenanting Armies to add detail from there. My library does not have it and it is out of print apparently.Tentsmuir (talk) 10:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at Edward Furgol's book and he certainly concurs with the 19 regiments of Scots at the battle. He also raises the query about the absense of Lord Gordon's from the key and places Lumsden as commander. In another section he discusses another Scots regiment, Argylls, which he cannot place at Marston, but cannot account for it with the regiments left with Callander around Newcastle. For the moment then I think it best to leave them out of the Order of Battle s they may have been left in garrsion on Morpeth or Sunderland. I am only about a third of the way through my note taking from this source and will not get back to it for another week or so.Thugcat (talk) 07:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Horses

I see the quote relating to the size of horses used by the Covenanters "The cavalry used smaller and lighter mounts than English units, which meant they had to be placed in the rear of Cromwell's and Fairfax's horse." I would like to remove this or see evidence for it. I think this is an illusion to the medieval period and the reputed palfry used by the likes of Robert the Bruce. Given the strong cavalry areas of the Scottish Borders and the direct import of horses from the continent, I would be surprised if a cavalry commander like David Lesley would go into battle on a pony after 20 years of continental service. And I would also like to know if the lancers and regular cavalry used similar mounts. I wonder if there is anything in Peter Edwards' various works on horses and the British Civil Wars. Anyone got access to a copy? My local library proved a dead end.Tentsmuir (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Young (1970), p.25, although he does not quote any first hand source from which he drew his conclusion. HLGallon (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Cheers - in that case I suppose it has to stay until some other source states otherwise: but for the reasons stated above I have my doubts as to the veracity of the claim. Still trawling abebooks.com for a copy of Edwards :) Tentsmuir (talk) 09:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, Young (1970), p.117: quoting "Lord Saye":

...the enemy's horse, being many of them, if not the greatest part, gentlemen, stood very firm a long while, coming to a close fight with the sword, and standing like an iron wall, so that they were not easily broken; if the Scots' light but weak nags had undertaken that work, they had never been able to stand a charge or endure the shock of the enemy's horse, both horse and men being very good, and fighting desperately enough.

This is apparently a footnote to page 42 of Charles Harding Firth, but exasperatingly, doesn't say which of Firth's works, nor whether "Lord Saye" is James Fiennes, 2nd Viscount Saye and Sele or possibly William Fiennes, 1st Viscount Saye and Sele. Further down the same page of Young, also quoting "Lord Saye":

Herein indeed was the good service David Leslie did that day with his little light Scotch nags... that when a regiement of the enemies's was broken he then fell in and followed the chase, doing execution upon them, and keeping .hem from rallying again and getting into bodies,

If not eyewitnesses, both Viscounts Saye were contemporaries. HLGallon (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Edwards arrived and concurs with Saye about the size of the Scottish horse. Reference duly added. I must say though that the layout is unhelpful in this book and a lot of broad statements are made from one source. So we learn that Scottish horses were small and in short supply (1644) and by 1646 hardly enough to equip a troop. In consecutive sentences. OK, but a lot happened in the middle. Still a fascinating read, and one in which horses play a big role with all three kingdoms covered equally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tentsmuir (talk • contribs) 14:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank's for that - I have now ordered a copy of Edwards to see what he says on the subject, but the Saye quote is helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tentsmuir (talk • contribs) 10:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Peter Edwards' book finally arrived and concurs with Saye about the size of the Scottish horse. Reference duly added. I must say though that the layout is unhelpful in this book and a lot of broad statements are made from one source. So we learn that Scottish horses were small and in short supply (1644) and by 1646 hardly enough to equip a troop. In consecutive sentences. OK, but a lot happened in the middle. Still a fascinating read, and one in which horses play a big role with all three kingdoms covered equally. Tentsmuir (talk) 14:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Fairfax's Foot

The interpretation of Lumsden's key as listed actually gives no body of infantry as belonging to Fairfax's army. However, contrary to the assertion that no eye-witness accounts support the view that the body listed as CC in the key belonged to Fairfax, Thomas Stockdale's account (quoted in Young (1970), pp. 213-217), emphatically places at least some of Fairfax's infantry in the front rank of the centre of the main battle. HLGallon (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Had to put my copy of Young back to the library. Was Stockdale an eye-witness or a contmporary (memory loss)? Stewart has a different disposition I'm sure. But as to positioning Murdoch & Grosjean argue the Fairfax regiments were in the van of the right wing. They quote Stewart and what they say makes sense when you look at the Lumsden plan. Stewart (from Murdoch & Grosjean adding in the 'Right Wing') - "sir Th o. Fairfax his new levied Regiments being in the Van [of the right wing], they wheeled about, & being hotly pursued by the enemy, came back upon the L. Fairfax foot, and the reserve of the Scottish foot, broke them wholly, & trod the most part of them under foot."

Note - it was Thomas Fairfax's regiment which broke, making them horse. This fits with Stewart who says it was Fairfax's horse wheeling round which trampled infantry behind them. If the Fairfax regiments in question were in the centre of the main battalia - who commanded them because Thomas Fairfax was on the right for sure? And at which point in the battle is it recorded that the enemy pursued the centre of the main allied battalia, in any source? And if they did, why did the Scots Covenanters and Crawford's on Either side not close in on them and finish them off rather than allow them to hotly pursue?

What we now know is that Thomas Fairfax's fleeing regiments on the right then dispersed Ferdinando Fairfax's foot (according to Stewart) in the Royalist charge and pursuit (that much is agreed - that it was the right wing that broke). In the process they took out the Covenanters on the second and third row right of the main battalia. What Young and others have failed to explain was the disposition of infantry regiments in the right wing which are clearly marked on the key as infantry, not just cohorts of musketeers (but not mentioned by Lumsden), because the key only identifies the centre battalia regiments including six Covenanter regiments missed by Young. What he then did was apparently squeeze Manchester and Fairfax regiments into gaps. In none of the other eye-witness accounts are these two front and centre Fairfax regiments exist, and why would Leven have given them primacy of position over his own regiments? Could be wrong, they may have been there

To sum up though - If we believe Stockdale, or Young's interpretation of him, either these two Fairfax regiments extracated themselves from the front of the main battalia without disturbing the regiments to the left or right of them, or those directly behind whole being pursued by a previously unrecorded assault directly into the centre of the main battalia! Astonishing. Or, there were Fairfax regiments on the right wing (more probable) and missing from the key and never mentioned by Young. I buy the newer interpretation - that the Fairfax regiments that broke were those of his horse in the van of the right wing, and that they took out Fairfax regiments on the right wing and Covenanter foot as they went (these latter either being on the right wing too or on the right of the reserve. Thoughts? NB Love the Fairfax Foo Fighters reference! Tentsmuir (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Must have missed the Fairfax Foo Fighters Reference!? This seems to make sense. Pouring over the Young plate of Lumsden with the magnifying glass I'd agree that there does seem to be regiments on the right wing. Not noticed that before. And the fact that the Fairfax horse trampled Fairfax foot as well as Scots had passed me byThugcat (talk) 07:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

In all the above argument, the assumption seems to be that all Fairfax's infantry were deployed in a contiguous mass, and that if some were on the right rear they all were. However, Manchester's infantry were definitely split, with some under Lawrence Crawford on the left of the front line and others (including the Earl of Manchester's own regiment) in the centre or right of the third line. What seems clear to me is that as the allied infantry hastened back from the south, they were pushed into the main battle wherever necessary or convenient, without time for leisurely concerns such as precedence or previously arranged plans. As Lumsden himself stated on his plan "... the Brigads drawen up heir as we [illegible] it is not so formal as it ought to be." Nor would the allied generals waste time by arguing over who was supposed to go where or risk confusion by redeploying units in the face of Rupert's army. Incidentally, Stockdale's account, which mentions only a Brigade of Fairfax's foot in the front line, not all of them, was dated 5 July, three days after the battle and read before the House of Commons three days later, which authenticates the date of writing. Stockdale may well have been an eyewitness, as he has derogatory things to say about spectators at the battlefield infecting troops with panic. HLGallon (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Nor, with respect, do I buy the argument that "If we believe Stockdale, or Young's interpretation of him, either these two Fairfax regiments extracated themselves from the front of the main battalia without disturbing the regiments to the left or right of them, or those directly behind whole being pursued by a previously unrecorded assault directly into the centre of the main battalia!". Stockdale recorded the attack by some of Newcastle's foot and Blakiston against the allied centre. Rae's and some of Hamilton's regiments were, with Fairfax's brigade, presumably those described by Lumsden as "those that failyed of the vane ...". Behind them, Livingstone's and Yester's regiments on the left of the second line are not noted by Lumsden as having played any further role in the battle although Cassillis's, Douglas of Kilhead's, Dunfermline's and Coupar's regiments evidently stood firm and were later used by Lumsden to plug the hole in the front line. Behind them in turn, Sinclair's, Stewart's, Hepburn's and the Teviotdale Regiment are noted as having broken and fled. Blakiston evidently caused plenty of disruption to the allied centre. (Crawford's brigades, on the left of the front line, were possibly ahead of their neighbours to the right, and/or too far left to be in the direction of Blakiston's charge.) HLGallon (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe that either "If we believe Stockdale ... " - I am merely pointing out how ludicrous it seems. And as for the argument postulated to the contrary, consider this: Who says that Livingstone's and Yester's did not play any further role - "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and all that. And, equally, who then discusses what these two centre front Fairfax regiments did in the battle , if they were there, if they stood? I would not contend the regiments of Fairfax had to be brigaded together, but according to Young they were only front and centre - who are those guys on the right? I would strongly contend, based on the older order of battle, that few have considered the presence of foot on the right. And what has been demonstrated is that eyewitnesses who were there alleged that the entire centre and right fled which seems laughable now as it they did not even bother to find out which regiments were there but often dismissed Scottish regiments as a single mass. Having now seen most (but not yet all) of the new eyewitness accounts, it is clear that each eye witness focusses on only a small part of the battle, and particular authors give primacy to one based on the story they want to tell (this to Firth, no one was left on the field except Cromwell's wing for the allies - I could not believe that when I read it, but checked it, and it is what he says!).* It is undeniable that most accounts do not discuss the majority of other regiments present, not even most. Indeed many do not discuss most or particular regiments at all, only outcomes. What we do have is polemic from certain 'eyewitnesses', an order of battle that does not square with the collection of eyewitness accounts, and it anyway a second hand copy and illegible in places. I think the OdB as set out now is more complete and gives a far more nuanced understanding of the centre than previous, but is not yet complete. We still have work to do. "Thugcat" - I have no knowledge of Argyle's regiment so cannot comment.

• NB I see that one of the new original sources quoted by Murdoch & Grosjean is actually in print in Aberdeen Council Letters! I have ordered it for a lookTentsmuir (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

A contemporary source which again places the Fairfax regiments of foot in the right wing and not the centre battle: ′The Right Wing of Horse was intrusted to Sir Thomas Fairfax, a man of known Valour and Resolution, it did consist of his whole Cavalry, and three Regiments of the Scottish Horse, commanded by the Earle of Dalhousie, Earle of Eglinton, and Lord Balgony: Next unto them was drawn up the Right Wing of the Foot, consisting of the Lord Fairfax his Foot, and two Brigades of the Scottish Foot for a Reserve. In the main Battell was the Regiments of the Earle of Lindsey, Lord Maitland, Earle of Cassils, and Kelheads, and two Brigades of the Earle of Manchesters: In the Reserve was the Earle of Balcleugh his Regiment, the Earle of Lowdons, Earle of Dumfermlings, Lord Coupers, Generall Hammiltouns Generall of the Artillery, Edinburgh Regiment, and a Brigade of Manchesters." This report is emphatic and is signed by five men including the three main generals. Penned 5 July, published 12 July 1644. According to the commanders and not the gossips, Fairfax's foot was not in the centre battel, but emphatically in the right wing. This supports the 'Stewart' account and again casts doubt on Young. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tentsmuir (talk • contribs) 11:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)