Talk:English Army

Anglo-Scottish Border Reivers

I do not see what the recently added image of the Anglo-Scottish Border Reivers has to do with the English army. -- PBS (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

they were arguably the first continuously active 'military' force in England and as well as their own raiding activities, they were involved in most of the major battles during Anglo-Scottish wars when English armies were raised, possibly a primitive standing force on border? But feel free to delete if you don't think its appropriate. Thecitizen1 (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

English Empire

The army was paid for by the English Parliament, therefore it was the English Army. What are the reliable sources that claim that it was an English Empire army? -- PBS (talk) 06:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not the English Empire Army, it's the English Army.... The English Parliament controlled England's Empire. Irish regiments formed part of the English Army. See Royal Irish Regiment (1684–1922). It defended Ireland as well as England, how is it only the army of England?Rob (talk | contribs) 18:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Parliament did not control the army the crown did. Parliament paid for it. How do you know that the Irish regiments were on part of the English establishment (the link you provided does not includes any third party sources to back up the claim)?

• "the Cromwellian garrison in Ireland declared its allegiance to Charles II in 1660 but it was too large for peace time purposes and partially disbanded." ..."As well as the Armies of England, Ireland and Scotland, Charles II ..." (The Oxford History of the British Army, edited by David G. Chandler ... (1996), Page 51).
• "In theory, the restored Royal Army remained very small, only nine regiments of foot being raised on the permanent English establishment. A further forty-one regiments of foot were raised temporarily for the English establishment at various times during the Second and Third Anglo-Dutch Wars (l665-7, l672-4) and the brief English participation in the Franco-Dutch War (l672-8)." ( Discovering English County Regiments by Ian Beckett (2003) Page 5)

What are the reliable sources that claim that it was an English Empire army and that the English Army was the English Empire army? It is simpler to think the king as head of several governments and several armies, much as during the first half of the 20th Century there was a British Army and a British Indian Army -- PBS (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The name? '18th Regiment of Foot'. Here's a source: [1], 'Transferred to the English establishment in 1685'.

England was a constitutional democracy by 1689, so parliament did control the army as it does today: 'the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law'.

I can't find sources for an Irish Army, or an English Empire Army.

Anyway, I'm not sure why the infobox's title is 'Restoration Army', surely the English Army was only the 'Restoration Army' during the 'Restoration' (1660–1688)?

Also, I'm not sure why you reverted my edit? I changed the flags/banners/arms, unrelated to this discussion.

Rob (talk | contribs) 20:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

"English establishment" is another way of saying English Army. Your mention of where the 18th Foot was before being transferred to the English establishment, rather proves the point that armed forces owning allegiance to the King, were not necessarily part of the English Army. The Irish Army is mentioned in Chandler above. See also

• Childs, John. "Chapter III: The Great Purge of Ireland". The Army, James II, and the Glorious Revolution. pp. 56–ff.

As for Restoration, while not strictly accurate it is a convenient moniker for the English army from 1660 to 1707. While we are discussing changes to the article it is best not to make changes. I object of you replacing the cross of Saint George with a Royal Banner. This is because I think you are missing the point of what is appropriate. The Royal Banner is no more appropriate then than it is today. The only time that the army would have fought under the Royal Banner is if the King was present on the battle field. So for example at the Battle of Sedgemoor there would not have been a royal banner. The regiments would have had their colours (I do not know if they carried a royal colour at that time). The point of the Cross of Saint George is that it now, as then, serves as a visual identifier for England. Charles II's banner is not easily recognised as such and was never used as such an identifier. I think you are misunderstanding the point of the symbols. -- PBS (talk) 10:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The Saint George Cross is a recognisable visual identifier of England today, but placing it in a historical context to represent the state may be misleading. National flags didn't develop until the 18th century. Sources suggest both the Royal Banner and Cross were used as banners. The St George Cross was used solely as a war flag and naval ensign however, while the Royal Banner more widely represented the state and Crown. I think it's misleading to represent the English state by a solely military flag, in precedence of it's Royal Banner of Royal Arms. Rob (talk | contribs) 10:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Trial of Charles I in January 1649 -- the Cross of St George is clearly visible above the seated commissioners/judges

This article is not being read by people alive in the 17th century. It is being read by people today and those associate the Cross of St George as the Flag of England. Incidentally the Cross of St George and the Saltire were just as well known national flags by the 17th century as they are today -- Just have a look at the Trial of Charles I (where the image to the right is also displayed) and the English Commonwealth articles (if they were not then the Union Flag would not exist). The Royal standard represents the King and is a heraldic device that among other things includes fleur-de-lis because the Stuarts calamined to be Kings of France (so it is an inaccurate device for representing England).

I have come across a source that gives details of the English Regimental colours during this period:

In the account of the encampment on Putney Heath, in October, 1694, given in the Appendix to Grose’s quaint volumes of Military Antiquities, each regiment is described as carrying two colours as at present, the first being the 'Union,' and the second of the has of the regimental facings, charged with the cross of St. George, and having the regimental badge in the centre. Many of these colours are also described as having a gold flame issuing from one corner toward the centre of the field, this was one of the numerous heraldic devices assumed by Henry VIII, but why it should have been adopted by these regiments in the later times of which we now speak we cannot say."

— H. Colburn (1865), The United Service Magazine, Volume 2 page 236

The "Union" (without the red diagonal cross of St Patrick) was a device used by all the Stuarts as a graphic symbol of their claim to being King of "Great Britain" rather than that of the Parliaments that they were King of Scotland and England in a personal union.[2]

--PBS (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You can't claim that the Saint George Cross is the national flag of the English state because it is the national flag of contemporary England, or because it was used by a revolutionary republic, or because it was used to form the flag of a Great Britain. The St. Patrick Cross was not the national flag of Ireland, but still used on the United Kingdom's flag. I don't dispute that the Saint George Cross was used by English forces, however it was not the national flag of the state. We don't need a recognisable symbol every time we mention England in an infobox. We could include a banner or coat of arms that has some historical significance to the state, but a military flag is misleading. The English state did not have a national flag. Rob (talk | contribs) 12:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Why do you seek to continually change the text in the article before there is a consensus for change on the talk page?

"Saint George Cross is the national flag of the English state because it is the national flag of contemporary England", When exactly do yo think there was ever legislation to dictate what the national flag of Great Britain or the constituent countries within the what is now the United Kingdom? I am personally not concerned about eye candy in the infobox, so I am in favour of removing all of it, but I think the argument for removing the personal symbols of the King is more pertinent than the English flag. So I would suggest that all the symbols are removed and we replace it with an image of one of the battle that the Army fought. However I realise that some people are interested in symbols appearing in the info box so if the Royal arms or banner are to be kept then so should the English flag. -- PBS (talk) 13:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

(I may have misunderstood what you mean by "because it is the national flag of contemporary England" do you mean contemporary to the time or contemporary as in now? I think I have shown that it was then the flag of England and it remains so. If not, how do you explain its usage in James's union flag and by the Commonwealth?) -- PBS (talk) 13:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Contemporary as in now.

Are you serious? You have 'shown that it was then the flag of England and it remains so'? Really? No. That's you're conclusion. See WP:SYNTHESIS.

My guess is that they used the Saint George Cross and Saint Andrew Cross in the Union Flag because they were banners used by England and Scotland and looked pretty neat when put together. And how exactly was the Union Flag the national flag of Great Britain when its use was restricted to Royal Ships? How did you come to the conclusion that a naval banner was the national flag of Great Britain?

The modern concept of national flags simply did not exist during the 17 century.

I would be fine with placing the Saint George Cross under the Insignia section of the infobox, but not next to 'Kingdom of England', as it was not the flag of England, and doing so is contrary to WP:INFOBOXFLAG.

Rob (talk | contribs) 14:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

"The modern concept of national flags simply did not exist during the 17 century" (1) How do you come to that conclusion? (2) who says that placing the cross of St George next to England represents a national flag and not a national symbol? (3) What distinction are you do you make between flag and banner? (3) When exactly do yo think there was ever legislation to dictate what the national flag of Great Britain or the constituent countries within what is now the United Kingdom? (4) Why do you seek to continually change the text in the article before there is a consensus for change on the talk page? -- PBS (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

1. You're asking me to prove why we should not include material. That's not how Wikipedia works. You need to provide a source that implies national flags did exist in the 17th century.

2. It implies that the Saint George cross is the predominant symbol of the English state, which is original research. Regardless, WP:INFOBOXFLAG advises against using flag icons in that instance, hence why I removed it. Again, I support including the flag under the Insignia section, where it belongs (see the British Flag at British Army).

3. I'm not making a distinction between flags and banners. I'm making a distinction between national flags and military banners, and there is a significant difference between these. Edit: Although I'm aware a national flag can also be a military banner of course.

The second 3. I'm aware that no legislation has ever dictated the flag of England, Great Britain, or the United Kingdom. You still need a source! Why is that difficult to understand?

4. Because policy MOS is clear (WP:INFOBOXFLAG).

Rob (talk | contribs) 15:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

"I'm not making a distinction between flags and banners" "they were banners used by England and Scotland and looked pretty". "The modern concept of national flags simply did not exist during the 17 century". You seem to want to have you cake and eat it. The eye candy is there for modern readers and clearly from you own words about the Union Flag and from the engraving at Charles I's trial there association between and the Cross of St George and England also see here for a copy of the Great Seal of England (1651)) which also includes the Cross of St George. One can not get more representative of an English state than that. -- PBS (talk) 17:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Charles II was crowned at Westminster on St George's day and here is a source celebrating the return of the King in 1660 showing a cross of St George on a flag.

Also "...the author has not been able to find any mention of the 'arms' or flag of St George in English earlier than the year 1277. ... "The cross of St George is definitely referred to in 1277 in circumstances that leave no doubt that it way then in use in England as a national emblem." (W.G. Perrin (1922) British Flags, pages 37–38)

-- PBS (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss your conclusions, because they have no standing here: 'To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented'.
I don't understand your point. I haven't made any distinction between flags and banners. I referred to the Saint George Cross and Saint Andrew Cross as 'banners' because in the 17th century they were used as banners. As far as I understand, a banner is a type of flag. A national flag is also a type of flag. Are we clear?
I agree that the Saint George Cross was a national symbol of England (hence why it was used as a military banner), and a flag of the English state (specifically, a military banner), but there's no reliable source to support the view that it was the national flag of the English state. Giving it primacy (using it as a flag icon for example) implies that it was the predominate flag of the English state, which is not reliable sourced. In the 17th century, kingdoms were predominantly represented by there coat of arms, rather then a flag, so it's more historically appropriate to use arms adjacent to 'Kingdom of England' then a flag. Regardless, MOS advises against any icon in this instance. Can you explain why this is an exception?
Can I add the Saint George Cross to the infobox's insignia section or not? It isn't eye candy. It's a flag used by the English Army. It is informative to list military flags used by a military force, as we do at British Army.
Rob (talk | contribs) 23:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Also, I'm aware that the Saint George Cross is used adjacent to 'Kingdom of England' on many articles, and I do not intend to mass-change them to the Royal Banner. Currently, my position is that there lacks a reliable source to imply either flag is the predominate flag of the English state. I also think coat of arms icons would be more appropriate for pre-18th century events, and I may propose that at in a centralised discussion. I will notify you if I do however. Rob (talk | contribs) 23:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

While we are discussing the article it is best not to make changes so please leave the box alone until we have finished discussing it. I have already stated that the image of the royal standard inappropriate and would probably be better replaced with a battle scene. In fact I think a collage of battle scenes from different wars would probably be better still. As for the flag images the two obvious ones to use are the two mentioned above at the rendezvous on Putney Heath are the union flag and the English flag.

What precisely do you mean by a "national flag" and why do you think national flags did not come in until the 18th century? Why the 18th and not 17th or 19th? -- PBS (talk) 11:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I wouldn't object to replacing the coat of arms with battle scenes, but I think we should have insignias used by the English Army under the 'Insignia' heading, as we do at British Army.

National flags are a modern concept. They are used in general civilian context, unlike military banners and maritime flags, and are usually designated by the establishment. Nationalism is a recent development. Historically, people were loyal to their leader, not to their nation. With the development of nationalism, national flags developed. Many national flags were historically military or maritime flags.

Rob (talk | contribs) 12:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

"Nationalism is a recent development. Historically, people were loyal to their leader, not to their nation." and so how do you explain

• The wording in the Declaration of Arbroath (1320)
• Shakespeare's patriotic comments on England --"This other Eden, demi-paradise, This fortress...", or "And gentlemen in England now abed Shall think themselves accursed they were not here", or "Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more; Or close the wall up with our English dead".
• The fact that the English Parliament considered that it was a Scottish Army that invaded England in 1640 (Second Bishops War) -- same King/leader.
• The fact that the English executed their king "Charles Stuart, that man of blood" in 1649, abolished the monarchy and appointed a council of state (with a revolving president) as the executive and called their nation the Commonwealth of England.

Do you think that the Commonwealth of England was not a nation state?

-- PBS (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Neither of our conclusions have any standing here. I simply don't agree with your conclusions.

Going back to matters we can discuss...

Why shouldn't we have insignias used by the English Army under the 'Insignia' heading, as we do at British Army?

Rob (talk | contribs) 17:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

What do you think the insignia were? -- PBS (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I think they were the Royal Banner and Saint George Cross. But if that's arguable, you can remove the Royal Banner and I will look for sources. You can't place battle images under a Insignia section, so where exactly do you want those? And what's your position on the coat of arms? I think it should be remove since it lacks any real purpose. Rob (talk | contribs) 17:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The Battle picture(s) as an image at the top (per the box on English people). It seem from the Putney Heath quote above that the two flags used were the union flag as the Kings Colours and the Cross of St George Charge on the Regimental Colours (which were the same background colour as the facings on their uniforms). Given the location on other contemporary flags the Cross of Saint Gorge was probably in a a canton Otherwise does not make a lot of sense. Other sources talk about three colours it seems probable that the third colour was that of the colonel of the regiment. However this quote from another sources states that at the time of the creation of the British Army:

Hitherto each Regiment had borne three colours. They were now limited to two. The union with Scotland having been formally effected on the accession of Queen Anne, the cross of St Andrew was placed on one of the colours, in addition to that of St George, whence it was called the Union colour. The other colour was of the hue of the Regimental facings, with few exceptions, and bore the device of each Corps, to which were afterwards added the names of battles in which the Regiment had reaped distinction.

— A Familiar History of the British Army, from the Earliest Restoration in ... by Joachim Hayward Stocqueler pages 25–26

Queen Ann came to the throne in March 1702, but the act of union did not take affect until 1707 -- so some confusion between and in the sources. So I think we need more sources. -- PBS (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Merging/Adding a History Section

This is fairly large change, but i propose that the merging of the sections into a History section would greatly increase clarity. More specifically the merging of all sections except for the introduction and Amalgamation in the British Army IronBattalion (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

As all of the article is about an historical army which was almalgamated into the British Army in 1707, I do not think that the edit of section header you propose would increase clarity. I think it would do the precise opposite and imply from the skimming of the Table of Contents that the English army still existed. -- PBS (talk) 10:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)