Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Powick Bridge

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Eddie891 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Powick Bridge edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Harrias (talk)

Battle of Powick Bridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The Battle of Powick Bridge was, of itself, a minor affair. Both sides had in the region of 1,000 mounted soldiers, a mix of cavalry and dragoons. A detachment of the Parliamentarian field army had been sent to try and secure a Royalist silver convoy, which Prince Rupert had been sent to protect. The Parliamentarians bungled across Rupert's troops, who themselves were resting in a field without their armour. There is some disagreement about whether Rupert had set much a guard, but he had the better of the ground: the Parliamentarians were funnelled into a narrow lane. Rupert dispensed with the more common tactic at the time of using cavalry as a mobile firing platform, and instead "charged" his men at the opponents, breaking all but one troop. The skirmish was soon won by Rupert's Royalists, and Rupert's reputation as a cavalry commander was established.

As always, all thoughts, comments and criticisms are welcome. Harrias talk 12:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass edit

All images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 22:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass edit

  • There isn't consistent use of location param—Manganiello is missing it
    • Cheers Buidhe, added the locations for Manganiello. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources seem to meet minimum standard for reliability.
  • No sources checked as I do not have access to these books. (t · c) buidhe 22:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed edit

This article is in great shape, I only have a few minor comments:

Build-up of the First English Civil War

  • many historians believe these events made civil war inevitable. this is cited to Gaunt; I just want to make sure he is saying "many historians" here and there aren't supposed to be more cites here for other historians?
    • Indeed, Gaunt refers to many historians. Harrias (he/him) • talk 12:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • he fielded between a quarter and half as many men as Essex to give some context, if the sources allow, suggest indicating the size of Essex's field army.
  • ...Royalist regiments being raised in the Wales... delete the

Prelude

  • While they were still some distance away it is not clear to me if the they here is Royalist or Parliamentarians.
    • Changed to "While Essex was still some distance away, he received intelligence.." Harrias (he/him) • talk 12:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • towards Worcester, to prevent the convoy don't think that comma should be there.

Aftermath

  • Their relation of the battle... not crazy on this phrasing. How about "Their account of the battle..."
    • Yeah, that works better, not sure why I didn't use that originally! Harrias (he/him) • talk 12:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 09:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Zawed, responses above. Harrias (he/him) • talk 12:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All good, happy to support this now. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm edit

I'll take a look at this soon. Hog Farm Bacon 16:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed this at GA, so I wouldn't be surprised if there's not much for me to pick on in the second round.

Lead
  • Consider adding the date when Byron entered Worcester, for a little context.
Sir John Byron's convoy
  • Link cavalry here, especialy since the distinction between cavalry and dragoons is made in this article.
  • Link Oxford
Battle
  • "Brooks suggests that they had received intelligence that Byron was preparing to leave" - First mention of Brooks. Who is he?
Infobox
  • You give Royalist strength at 1,000, but it looks like they had a bit more: 160 with Byron, and then another 1,000 with Rupert.
    • Byron's men weren't involved in the skirmish, only Rupert's 1,000. Harrias (he/him) • talk 05:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, very tidy little article. Hog Farm Bacon 00:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Hog Farm, replies above. Harrias (he/him) • talk 05:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

  • I'm not sure that 1,000 men a side counts as a "minor skirmish".
    • Probably a bit POV-y too. Trimmed. Harrias (he/him) • talk 17:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where he requested assistance" suggests that he requested assistance from Worcester, which may well be the case. Or do you mean 'from where he requested assistance'?
  • Link "convoy".
  • "Both forces consisted of" "Both forces" → 'Each force'.
  • "alerted Rupert". Alerted Rupert, or alerted his scouts?
    • Actually, I need to change this slightly to reflect the uncertainty I later explain. Will think on this. Harrias (he/him) • talk 05:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tweaked this to "..approaching alerted the Royalists, who quickly formed up." How's that? Harrias (he/him) • talk 17:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "before covering the Royalist move" I suspect that few non-military types will understand what is meant by "covering" here.
    • Hmmm, how about "shadowed", although I'm not 100% sure that conveys the right thing. Harrias (he/him) • talk 17:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox: "Varied estimates between 30 and 150 dead or captured" Either delete "Varied estimates, or replace with 'Estimated'.
    • Changed to estimated. Harrias (he/him) • talk 05:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Location: Does "Worcestershire" add anything?
  • "who he accused" 'whom'.
  • Link "treason".
  • "In anticipation of the likely conflict". Maybe "the" → 'a'?
  • I believe that the semi colon in that sentence should be a comma.
  • "which had not been used since the mid-sixteenth century". This required me to do mental arithmetic; why not say 'over a century', or 'nearly a century', or 'a century' and spare a reader the effort?
    • Changed to "almost a century". Harrias (he/him) • talk 05:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite the manoeuvrings between the King and Parliament". What does this mean? (The physical manoeuvrings of their armies? If not, what?)
Which to me reinforces my qualms. "Despite the manoeuvrings between the King and Parliament, there remained an illusion that the two sides were still governing the country together." IMO the two halves of this sentence do not fit well together, but we can thrash it out at FAC.
  • "in between the King and London". Optional: delete "in".
  • "where he hoped to assemble the Royalist regiments". "assemble"? Do you mean something like 'join with', or 'gain the reinforcement of'?
    • "where he hoped to be reinforced by the Royalist regiments being raised in Wales"? Harrias (he/him) • talk 05:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the north- and south-west of England" "north-" If you mean north-west - and I am unsure if you do - I suggest you use that instead. (Or is it a typo?)
    • Changed to "north-west and south-west", though it sounds horrible to me. Harrias (he/him) • talk 05:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Gog the Mild, replied to most, still pondering a couple. Harrias (he/him) • talk 05:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the face of". Possibly 'by'?
    • But why use one word, when I can use four? Changed. Harrias (he/him) • talk 17:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while the city was also surrounded by agricultural land". I can't work out which "city" you are referring to. And is this so unusual for cities of the time as to be worthy of mention?
    • Worcester. I know what you mean, but Gaunt made a big deal about it. Will consider rephrasing or removing. Harrias (he/him) • talk 17:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and instead withdrew to the south". Instead of what?
    • Instead of attacking it, but it is superfluous, so I removed it. Harrias (he/him) • talk 17:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "two miles (3.2 km)". Personally I would round that to '3 km'.
  • What is "ostensibly" trying to suggest?
    • Ummm, I don't really know, but it falls foul of MOS:ALLEGED anyway, so I've removed it. Harrias (he/him) • talk 17:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "General of Horse" - why the upper cases?
  • "Byron had been reinforced by Prince Rupert". Do we know, even roughly, when this happened?
    • Found it, and added. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Dragoons were mounted infantry, armed with muskets". You got a solid source for that? I have one which states that at this period dragoons were simply infantry, mounted to facilitate operational mobility and included pikemen.
    • @Gog the Mild: Yeah, pretty robust sources: the one in the article, Roberts, Keith; Tincey, John (2001). Edgehill 1642: The First Battle of the English Civil War. Oxford: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 1-85532-991-3. states "The other type of soldier was the Dragoon, a musketeer mounted on a cheap horse." In his solo book, Tincey, John (1990). Soldiers of the English Civil War (2): Cavalry. Oxford: Osprey. ISBN 0-85045-940-0. Tincey says that "The pike-armed dragoon was never adopted in England". In Gaunt, Peter (2019) [2014]. The English Civil War: A Military History. London: Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 978-1-3501-4351-7.: "dragoons – troops who were mounted but who, having taken up forward positions, generally dismounted and fought on foot as musketeers". Wanklyn, Malcolm; Jones, Frank (2014) [2005]. A Military History of the English Civil War: 1642–1649. Abingdon: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-582-77281-6. also discusses them as exclusively musketeers, detailing what specific type of muskets they used. Harrias (he/him) • talk 18:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough.
  • "Parliamentarians had ten troops of cavalry and five companies of dragoons". Unless you provide numbers, this approaches pointlessness.
Nudge
Okay, had a crack at this. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "differed quite significantly" Delete "quite". Consider deleting "significantly".
  • "the Dutch Republic which had been the preeminent force at the start of the Thirty Years' War". True, but 1. As the Dutch were barely involved in the 30YW it is a bit misleading. 2. "had been the preeminent force at the start of the Thirty Years' War" ie 1618. That was 24 years ago and the "had been" wording suggests that at some time during the war this ceased to be the case.
    • I could remove it, but I think it provides useful context as to why they adopted and valued those tactics. Harrias (he/him) • talk 17:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting removing - I agree with your reasoning. But maybe tweak the phrasing?
Something like "..which was the preeminent force in the early 17th century.."? Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good.
Done. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while in defence the cavalry remained stationary" → 'while in defence the cavalry initially remained stationary'.
  • "attacked on the charge". Maybe "on" → 'at'?
Nudge
I'm not 100% convinced that this is an improvement, but nor does it look to make it worse, so sure. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were already in amongst" 1. For reasons which are beyond me, Americans don't like "amongst", suggest → 'among'. 2. Consider deleting "in".
  • Note a: purely a suggestion; in Battle of Dunbar (1650) I went with "They would advance in a tight formation, with their riders' legs interlocked, at no faster than a trot – in order to maintain formation" which maybe conveys the idea better?
    • I don't have a source which goes into that much detail though. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Drat! OK.
  • "Essex's Lifeguard was a cavalry troop of cuirassiers". In what why did these "cuirassiers" differ from your generic description of cavalry above. And if they didn't, why mention it?
    • They were more heavily armoured; do you feel this is worth noting? Harrias (he/him) • talk 17:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your call. Given their peripheral role I would be minded not to; but you go with something like "Essex's Lifeguard was a cavalry troop commanded by Sir Philip Stapleton. They were considered the most senior cavalry troop in the Parliamentarian army, well armoured and mounted, and were responsible for guarding Essex."
Suits me. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the most senior cavalry troop" Americans are liable to take this to mean that the troopers were the oldest.
    • Changed to "most elite". Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "drawn up into open order in the meadow" Is this what the source says? Would they not draw up (whatever that means - hint) in close order?
    • It is what the source says. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they were faced with point-blank carbine fire from the dragoons". You said earlier that dragoons used muskets and that cavalry had carbines.
    • Awkward. Changed to "gunfire". Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "allowing the Royalist cavalry time to prepare." Prepare what, over and above what you have already mentioned.
    • Rephrased to "giving the Royalist cavalry time extra time to prepare."
  • "Sandys' troop were routed". If "troop" is singular then "were" → 'was'.
    • British English allows collective nouns to be either singular or plural, no? Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "broke the Lifeguard, some of whom were carried away in the flight" I see the two parts of this as contradictory. "some of whom were carried away in the flight" suggests unwillingly; while "broke the Lifeguard" is an unequivocal statement that they fled.
    • Tweaked to "which was carried away in the flight", not sure where I got the "some of" from. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "desertions, drownings and prisoners are taken into account". This is the first time you have mentioned any of this.
    • That's about all there is on it to be honest; there is a passing mention in one of the sources (I can't find which one at the moment) about the fleeing Parliamentarians riding into the river and drowning, but that's it. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Then mention desertions and drownings earlier - you could almost cut and paste your wording above. It sits ill being suddenly brought up in the summary.
In fact, I can't find anything else on this in my books. I have changed the wording to hopefully soften it slightly. Will keep digging, I swear I read more about it somewhere... Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like one of my source reviews!
  • "In the event, the two armies met inconclusively at the Battle of Edgehill" on ... ?
  • "The Puritan preacher Hugh Peter gave a sermon referring to the two battles" is it known when? And, possibly, where?
    • Added a little more detail on this. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And that's your lot. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Gog the Mild, I think I've responded to each now, a couple with questions. Let me know your thoughts. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a couple of Nudges above which you may have missed and responses to a couple of your queries. Nearly there I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That all looks good. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_of_Powick_Bridge&oldid=983856572"