Talk:Battle of Dunbar (1650)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Vincent60030 (talk) 09:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Detail from Cromwell at Dunbar by Andrew Carrick Gow

• ... that having routed their Scottish opponents at the Battle of Dunbar (pictured), the cavalry of the New Model Army sang the 117th Psalm? Source: Reid, Stuart (2008) [2004]. Dunbar 1650: Cromwell's Most Famous Victory. Oxford: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84176-774-1, p. 74.

• Reviewed: Plumhoff v. Rickard
• Comment: A joint nomination with Girth Summit

Improved to Good Article status by Gog the Mild (talk) and Girth Summit (talk). Nominated by Gog the Mild (talk) at 15:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC).

• Recent GA, well-written and thoroughly referenced, and quite comprehensive to someone not familiar with the subject. AGF on offline sources. Hook is interesting, in the article, and cited (AGF on offline source). Image is in the article and appropriately licensed. QPQ done. A fairly straightforward good-to-go nomination. Constantine ✍ 16:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

We might as well run this on 3 September, the date of the battle. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, good idea. Gog the Mild, should we modify the hook to include the words "370 years ago today" after "Battle on Dunbar"?  GirthSummit _(blether) 11:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Good idea. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• ALT1 ... that having routed their Scottish opponents at the Battle of Dunbar (pictured) 370 years ago today, the cavalry of the New Model Army sang the 117th Psalm?

Perhaps @Cplakidas: could give ALT1 a formal tick. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Avec plaisir. Constantine ✍ 12:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Map and belligerents

Gog the Mild - a map has been added to the infobox by VFF0347. I think a map is probably a good thing, but I'm not sure this is the right one - do you think we need to show all of Scotland (all the way up to Shetland) in order for readers to be able to identify where we are? There are various alternatives available: Scotland South and Scotland Southeast jump out at me as being potentially more useful. I also wonder whether we ought to show the relative locations of Dunbar and Edinburgh on the map, but it would probably get too crowded if we also attempted to show Leith and Musselburgh, which are also mentioned in the text. Would be keen to know your thoughts on this.

@Girth Summit: A map is a great idea. I am kicking myself for not having thought of it. I have made a few tweaks. What do you think? I reckon that Dunbar needs removing to uncrowd it. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, I like your map - I tried knocking something like that this morning, but yours looks better than anything I managed. I see what you mean about being crowded - I've tried using a small battle symbol, which to my eye looks a bit less cluttered - what do you reckon? (I feel that Dunbar would be a very odd omission...) GirthSummit _(blether) 17:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, agreed, which is why I left it in. Yes, that's a lot better. I have made a couple of further minor adjustments and I think it's done. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

VFF0347 thanks for your work on this. You might not have noticed, the article is currently undergoing review at FAC - you would be welcome to offer a review there. I reverted your edit, in which you changed 'Scotland' as a belligerent to 'Scottish Covenanters (supporters of Charles II)'. I appreciate that consistency is desirable, but if there is an inconsistency between our articles, I don't think it's this one which is out of line with how modern scholarship describes the participants in this conflict. The Covenanters had repeatedly purged the Scottish army of anyone suspected of displaying personal loyalty to Charles II, and they had removed Charles' person from the vicinity of the conflict to prevent him from fostering support amongst the troops or being a distraction - it's simply wrong to call them 'Royalists', or 'supporters of the king' just because they were being opposed by a parliamentary army. The Covenanters were indisputably the legitimate government of Scotland at the time, they had raised the Scottish army, and they were entirely in control of it - I don't see why we wouldn't simply describe this force as 'Scotland', which is simple, accurate, and supported by the sources. It may be worth discussing whether Kingdom of England is the right target for the English side - Commonwealth of England might be a more accurate target, since this battle was during the Interregnum, but before the Protectorate had been established. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 11:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit: I suspect that Kingdom of England might be a tad inappropriate. But Commonwealth - possibly. I shall leave that to those with access to more specialist resources. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, it seems to me that either England or England would work - shall I toss a coin? GirthSummit _(blether) 17:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, feel free; although I still lean towards Commonwealth. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, I was reading too much into your 'but' there - I thought you were leaning away. I shall make it so. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit: ta. You know anyone who might do the source review? I have put it on request at the top of the FAC talk page, but there are an unusually large number ahead of us in the queue. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, we could beg a favour of Buidhe - I've seen them do source reviews in the past, and I think I've also seen them doing work on Scottish subjects before, so perhaps they'd be willing to take a look if we smile sweetly. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit: do you fancy doing the honours? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit and Gog the Mild - Gentlemen - Thank you for your notes and comments. I defer to you. I am not all that knowledgeable regarding the history of Scotland or England. I made the change as I assumed that the article on the Third English Civil War was the overarching authority for the events that happened after Charles I was executed and England became a Commonwealth. I therefore thought that the articles on Dunbar, Inverkeithing, etc. ought to conform. But I will leave the review and update to you and the FAC. I like the change that you made regarding the English Commonwealth vs the Kingdom of England. I also like your maps with one suggestion... Can the map be a relief map? Thanks so much Virgil FairchildVFF0347 (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

VFF0347, I'd be willing to try out a relief map and see how it looks (we don't want it to be too cluttered) - certainly the modern county boundaries shown in the location map don't add anything useful in the context of the battle - but I don't believe a relief map exists for this smaller area, and putting a module together to create one is beyond my technical know-how. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Landing in Fife

The fourth paragraph of the introductions says "the English landed a small force in Fife and were able to cross the Forth and threaten the northern Scottish strongholds". There seems to be something wrong with the geography here. Fife is north of the Forth. If their landing in Fife enabled them to threaten the northern strongholds (which were presumably the likes of Stirling and Perth), they wouldn't have crossed the Forth (unless they went a very long way round). Mike Marchmont (talk) 07:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mike Marchmont, not sure that I am seeing the issue here, although possibly we have been expressing ourselves poorly. The main article on this is Battle of Inverkeithing. (Which needs work and is on my "When I get time for it" list.) To summarise, Stirling was a choke point, and the English needed to capture or bypass it if they were to threaten Fife, Perth, Dundee, Aberdeen etc. They resolved this by landing a small force in Fife, which allowed them to ship a larger force across the Firth of Forth and defeat the Scots at Inverkeithing. They could then cut Stirling's communications and threaten the places listed above, which made the Scot's position untenable.

Clear? If not, please say. If this is clear, but we have poorly translated it into the article, again please say.

Cheers.

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gog the Mild. Thanks for your reply. What you say makes perfect sense. But I think the wording needs to be made a bit clearer: something like "the English landed a small force in Fife and this enabled them to transfer a larger force across the Forth to threaten the northern Scottish strongholds." Or, better still, how about simplifying it thus: "the English were able to cross the Forth and thus threaten the northern Scottish strongholds"? After all, this is the article's introduction, which is meant to be a summary of the article. Exactly how they got their men across the firth might perhaps be too detailed for this part of the article.

What do you think? I'd be happy to go along with you, if you disagree with any of this.

Mike Marchmont (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mike: I have made some slightly more serious changes. I think that it is better explained now. See what you think. Likewise my co-nominator. Thanks for the input. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mike Marchmont, Gog is exactly correct. The English forces weren't able to break through the defensive lines at Stirling, but they managed to land a small force in Fife and capture the Inverkeithing. Control of a port on the north side of the Forth allowed them to land much larger forces and threaten the northern strongholds - if Dunbar set the scene for the campaign, Inverkeithing was its crux. I think that Gog's edit sets this out more clearly, hope you agree. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 18:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Girth Summit and Gog the Mild. I am happy with the latest revision. Note that I understood the point about the importance of Inverkeithing and the need to capture or by-pass Stirling. My original comment was merely on the possible confusion between landing in Fife and crossing the Forth, given that Fife is already "across the Forth". But the latest revision removes that confusion. Mike Marchmont (talk) 07:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Mike Marchmont: I didn't doubt it. I suspect that it was a case of us knowing just what we wanted to communicate, and so reading that into our prose regardless. Thanks for helping tighten it up. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Reference to Border

I added a change under the Prelude section to link to article about the actual Scottish Border, not the modern council area. This has been changed since to point to the Scottish Marches article. I'm not sure this is right. That article itself, in it's intro says "The Scottish Marches era came to an end during the first decade of the 17th century" which is before the Battle of Dunbar. In addition, the scorched earth which occurred was surely limited to the general area between Edinburgh and the border in the vicinity of Berwick from which the invasion came? Jp2207 (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

It is not something I would want to go to the barricades over; feel free to revert to your version. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild, Thanks but on a re-think,  the actual border itself is not the point. How about:

Changing the "Accession of Charles II" to remove the last clause "crossing the Tweed", since I'd suggest this info is a key part of the Prelude anyway.

Then in the Prelude:

"by the time Cromwell entered Scotland, Leslie had..."

to

"...by the time Cromwell entered Scotland, crossing the Tweed on July 22,  Leslie had..."

And then finally this:

"Leslie prepared a defensive line of earthworks between Edinburgh and Leith, and employed a scorched earth policy between that line and the border areas. He then allowed Cromwell to advance unopposed."

becomes:

"Leslie prepared a defensive line of earthworks between Edinburgh and Leith, after employing a scorched earth policy between that line and the invading English army, allowing Cromwell to advance unopposed."

Comments welcome. Jp2207 (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)