Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Siege of Hull (1642)

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.

No consensus to promote at this time - Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Siege of Hull (1642) edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Harrias (talk)

The manoeuvrings between King Charles I and Parliament, each attempting to gain control of the large magazine housed in Hull, was the first significant military escalation in the build-up to the First English Civil War. There was little in the way of actual fighting, but Parliament's success was suggested by one historian to have been pivotal for the first year of the war, as it allowed the Parliamentarian army to be much better equipped than their Royalist opponents. As always, all input appreciated. Harrias ^talk 11:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

All images are free and correctly licensed. b uidhe 15:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

I'm not sure about Janus Publishing per this. Also, some of their books are self-published.
Other sources all look reliable.
No source checks done per nominator's good reputation. b uidhe 02:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Robinvp11; Overall

The longer an article is, the less likely people are to read it; I do something similar for a living, and that means constantly removing stuff interesting to me but not to my audience. Whenever I do a review, I try to think as a reader because I want people to benefit from the work you've put in.

General comments; too detailed in some areas eg the entire section 'Charles demands entry' could be covered in six lines, not enough in others. 'Background' is far too short eg its impossible to understand its significance without some details on the fact most of the North wanted to stay neutral etc. When it appears in the Aftermath, its like 'What?'

The siege itself wasn't really a siege - no positions were dug, they just shut the gates. So its unbalanced.

Can you define what you mean by unbalanced? Harrias ^talk 20:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Taken together, the sections on Entry and Siege contain a lot of repetition; most of the stuff about the defences is already covered in 1.1 Hull.
- The siege is more relevant in marking a point in the war, rather than as a military action; its loss crippled the Royalist ability to support their war effort in the North. That's not clear and its what I mean by 'unbalanced'.
- Words cost; I'm banging on about this :), but Wikipedia is an online resource - and research shows the longer an article is, the less likely people are to read it.Robinvp11 (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The strategic importance of Hull is not clear; the fact it was the second largest town in Yorkshire is less significant than where it sat on the shipping routes, particularly since the Royalists controlled the other major port, Newcastle. The reason it had the largest arsenal was because of that. Without London or Hull, or most of East Anglia, the Royalists could not easily import war material from the Continent. A Map would really, really help (I've put it in, feel free to remove)

The article says nothing about the conflicting Militia Ordinance and Commissions of Array, which essentially put people on the spot re loyalty.

No, ironically in other articles, I have been asked to remove these as going into too much detail! Harrias ^talk 20:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Doesn't need more than a line.Robinvp11 (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Specific points

Unlike most of Yorkshire, which had a mix of MPs favouring Parliament or the King, Hull and the surrounding East Riding of Yorkshire had returned exclusively Parliament-favouring members. The area was also religiously opposed to the King, having a strong Puritan population. Having done a lot of articles on English politics and religion in the 17th century, I'd question both statements, because the position was far more complex than that. Puritan did not mean opposition to the King, but his policies, plus the Presbyterian v Independent split (like Cromwell) led to the Second War. I'd also challenge that description of Hull MPs. It suggests a monolithic Parliamentary fortress, but (as you suggest further down), there were a number of Royalist plots within the town.

Within Hull itself, MPs were typically chosen for their willingness to stand-up for the town, rather than any underlying political or religious beliefs, as the town's corporation was interested in maintaining its own interests in the town without external influence. I don't think that's unusual.

Might be worth pointing out the arms stored in Hull's magazine had been purchased with compulsory donations from the locals, so they weren't that keen on shipping them to London either.

Do you have a source for this, it isn't something I'd come across? Harrias ^talk 20:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- I think it was Royle but let me check.Robinvp11 (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... He was taken to Hull, where he met with Hotham and admitted his true identity. Digby tried to persuade Hotham to surrender Hull to the King. The two agreed that if the King approached the town with a sufficient force, then Hotham could make a show of resisting, before honourably surrendering the town. This seems to state it as a fact when its provenance is dubious - Digby was a notoriously unreliable witness.

Charles rode towards Hull himself. He sent a small retinue ahead, consisting of his eight-year-old son—the Duke of York (later King James II of England)—and his nephew—the deposed Elector Palatine Charles Louis—along with some members of the nobility and fifty men. Grammar and too wordy? Too many dashes (my OCD kicking in) eg Charles set out for Hull, sending a small retinue ahead, which included his eight-year-old son, James and nephew Charles Louis, the deposed Elector Palatine.

and a large army from the local trained bands Really? which ones? Per Trevor Royle, at Nottingham, Charles had 1,500 horse and 1,000 infantry, described by Clarendon as the 'scum of England'.

That was at Nottingham; the Yorkshire trained bands (much like the Cornish) were happy to fight within the county boundaries, but were reluctant to travel beyond. That said, Manganiello has a tendency to conflate engagements; I wonder if he was referring to the army Charles brought the second time he visited. I'll look into this. Harrias ^talk 20:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm pretty sure he is.Robinvp11 (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This declaration from Parliament brought Hotham to national attention; as was typical during the civil war, Parliament celebrated its victory over the King by publishing propaganda. This seems to suggest this was a Parliamentary tactic, when it was used by both sides.

Can we have a Map of England, showing some of these places? They're easy to do and are really helpful. I've put one in :)

Section on Siege; for me, far too long.

In September 1642, Ferdinando Fairfax, Lord Fairfax signed a non-aggression pact with local Royalists in an attempt to maintain peace in Yorkshire. Hotham disagreed with the move, and after making strong declarations against the pact, he broke it by attacking Selby and Cawood Castle in early October, after which the Royalists retaliated by attacking Fairfax's headquarters in Bradford.[45] Hotham's doubts about defying the King remained: fuelled by his disagreements with Fairfax, Hotham tried to negotiation a defection with the Earl of Newcastle. I think I see where you're going, but it doesn't make sense as written ie Hotham disagrees with a neutrality pact, but then has doubts about fighting Charles.Robinvp11 (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review Robinvp11; you've given me plenty to think about. I was very much learning as I went with the local situation in Hull, and it's obviously something that I need to look into a bit more. There are a few of the individual points that seem relatively simple, but by and large I would rather address the more significant issues first, as these are likely to affect some of the others anyway. Harrias ^talk 17:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not suggesting this is the only approach :) but my history tutor (and the Army) taught me to ask "Why are we fighting here, for this?" Its often a lot more interesting (for me) than the operations. Seems obvious, but until the 19th century and railways, Hull and Newcastle were closer to London than they are today (because bulk transport was via water). So campaigns follow the same patterns.

Have a look at my article on Battle of Jankau - just to show what I mean.

The BCW Project on the Wars of the Three Kingdoms are really good in providing detail and overview - plus, they're designed for a similar audience so worth a look :).

Robinvp11 (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I would like to withdraw this nomination. Robinvp11 has highlighted that the balance of the article is off, and I want to make sure that I take the time to address this properly, rather than try and rush a solution during an open review. Robinvp11, thanks again for your review; I might ping you for some input once I've done some work on this, prior to re-nominating if that's okay? Harrias ^talk 21:00, 9 March 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.