Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Powick Bridge
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
Battle of Powick Bridge[edit]
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
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)
Image review—pass[edit]
All images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 22:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Source review—pass[edit]
- There isn't consistent use of location param—Manganiello is missing it
- 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)
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?
- 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.
- 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..."
That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 09:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Comments Support from Hog Farm[edit]
I'll take a look at this soon. Hog Farm Bacon 16:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
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.
That's it, very tidy little article. Hog Farm Bacon 00:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Support from Gog the Mild[edit]
- I'm not sure that 1,000 men a side counts as a "minor skirmish".
- "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?
- "before covering the Royalist move" I suspect that few non-military types will understand what is meant by "covering" here.
- Infobox: "Varied estimates between 30 and 150 dead or captured" Either delete "Varied estimates, or replace with 'Estimated'.
- Location: Does "Worcestershire" add anything?
- It clarifies that we're not talking about Worcester, Massachusetts? Harrias (he/him) • talk 05:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- "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?
- "Despite the manoeuvrings between the King and Parliament". What does this mean? (The physical manoeuvrings of their armies? If not, what?)
- wikt:maneuver, definition 2. Harrias (he/him) • talk 05:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- 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'?
- "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?)
More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Cheers Gog the Mild, replied to most, still pondering a couple. Harrias (he/him) • talk 05:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- "in the face of". Possibly 'by'?
- "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?
- "and instead withdrew to the south". Instead of what?
- "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)
- "General of Horse" - why the upper cases?
- Because I like capital letters, and dislike MOS:JOBTITLES. Removed them. Harrias (he/him) • talk 17:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- "Byron had been reinforced by Prince Rupert". Do we know, even roughly, when this happened?
More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- "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)
- Fair enough.
- "Parliamentarians had ten troops of cavalry and five companies of dragoons". Unless you provide numbers, this approaches pointlessness.
- "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.
- "while in defence the cavalry remained stationary" → 'while in defence the cavalry initially remained stationary'.
- "attacked on the charge". Maybe "on" → 'at'?
- "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?
- 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?
- 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."
- "the most senior cavalry troop" Americans are liable to take this to mean that the troopers were the oldest.
- "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?
- "they were faced with point-blank carbine fire from the dragoons". You said earlier that dragoons used muskets and that cavalry had carbines.
- "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'.
More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- "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.
- "desertions, drownings and prisoners are taken into account". This is the first time you have mentioned any of this.
- 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 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?
And that's your lot. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- @Gog the Mild: Have I missed anything now? Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
That all looks good. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)