Talk:Battle of Alton

What kind of conditions

The article states "...but withdrew to Basingstoke in failure, with his soldiers near mutiny from poor conditions." What kind of conditions? Food, billeting, weather, pay? Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I meant "weather conditions". I fixed the sentence in the article. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Reference problem

The text includes {{Cnote|β|Colonel Richard Boles name is given as Bolle in many sources.<ref name=curtis This convention may originate with Godwin's ''Civil War in Hampshire''.<ref name=curtis40 /><ref name=curtis42> Curtis (1896), pg. 42</ref>}}

But there is an incomplete ref name=curtis in the note. It is swallowing a sentence and causing a cite error. Probably all that needs to be done is complete the ref name, i.e. <ref name=curtisXX />. ClamDip (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I've fixed the problem, mostly. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I just emphasized the part that is the error. ClamDip (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahh. I was confused as to what the error was. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Useless Comments

Pics and What Didn't Happen

The inclusion of modern-day photographs (viz [St_Lawrence_bullet_holes.jpg] and [File:St_Lawrence_finds_after_battle.jpg] ) spark two desires in me.

First, I should like to see a more recent photograph of the church as it now stands - though this desire can be sated by following a relevant link, you might consider cross-linking that page's image here. It would provide a nice transition, I think, from descriptions of events to discussion of the aftermath. But it's certainly not necessary to so do :)

I don't think it's appropriate. Any images of the church taken in colour hardly relate to the aftermath of so ancient a battle.

Second, I would be interested to see an entry concerning the post faco historiography of the incident. The "aftermath" section of the article places the battle in the context of the War; but the images given later in the article, of contemporary relics, conjure in me a wish to learn more of the battle's place in history and popular perception. Is there a Blue Plaque at the Church? Where is Boles' elegy (as given in the article) to be found transcribed? Is the battle celebrated by the town, or ever commemorated by recreationists? Likewise: is there any divergence in popular perceptions of the battle, as from the sources you have encountered?

• A quick search indicates there is no Blue Plaque.

• More, rather uninteresting details on the elegy are easily found in the cited reference; as stated above, I think this matter relates more to Boles the man than to the battle itself.

• I have read about reenactments. They seemed rather small-scale, though, and not worthy of mention.

• Nope. No divergence that I saw. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Annoying Tidbit Request

What was the population of the town at the time of the battle?

I've added the approximate population in 1666. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Annoying Tidbit Request

Did the town of Alton declare openly for Parliament after the battle? Did they remain loyal to the Roundheads for the remainder of the Warres?

I haven't seen anything about that. I suspect nobody care(s/d). -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

My limited exposure to like historiography suggests that this indicates they remained neutral-Parliamentarian... that is to say: occupied. I'll see if I can find anything mentioning it explicitly in the parliamentary record.

Dak06 (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Dating

"13 December 1653"

Is that old- or new-style dating?

Good question. That's the date given in all contemporary works (as far as I recall without note), and I think most accounts are derived from that of Godwin (1882). Is there no consensus on which date to use in the literature on the English Civil Wars? -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe there's a consensus among historiographers, particularly of the Victorian are (and non-Oxbridgian to boot). Since most modern works provide an explicit declaration as to one form of chronography or the other (or use an intertextual RegEx to offer both), I expect that works which predate the Great War simply take one or t'other as they prefer.

ASIDE: It would be nice for WikiPedia to have a concrete policy on this issue. Since Battle of Naseby, listed as being the battle of the First Civil, makes no allowance for such chronographic differentiation, I expect that there is no such policy, or else it is unfortunately obscure. In which case I expect my request would be better brought before a Project rather than an Article. Forgive me for burdening you with it :)

It looks as if the appropriate project is WikiProject History, which unfortunately is a bit general. If I were you, I'd ask if there's a policy, find out there isn't, then write one yourself.

That being said: Do you still have access to Godwin '82? If so, you might try to triangulate based upon its citation of a common date - the Battle of Edgehill, for example, or Marston, or Oxford, or (even better) a parliamentary enabling act, or (shooting the moon) a regicide or coronation. That being said: if it is not a standard to which articles are held, I suppose you could use your time more profitably elsewhere.

Yes. See the bibliography of the article... there should be a link there. Would you do the honours of looking at that source? I trust your judgement in these matters more than mine, and I might make a careless error from unfamiliarity with the material. Of course, such work is technically OR, but I think we might let the matter slide, as long as we're very careful. Still, it's possible that Godwin, for instance, is inconsistent in his usage, and we wouldn't want to make a mistake. It'd be better if the ambiguity were resolved in one of the newer books I used, and I just missed it in my initial research. I'll be in the city this weekend, and I may get a chance to go to the NYPL and check it out. It's not a standard to which articles are regularly held; but it certainly should be! Ambiguous, misleading and wrong information are all certainly worse than no information at all. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Dak06 (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Four Tildes

Dak06 (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

WALLER

Why is he referred to as Lord Waller in para 2? He was just a knight. Same goes for Hopton.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.138 (talk) 07:10, 13 December 2011

Is it worth mentioning that Waller and Hopton were friends, and only enemies in battle/politics, hence the considerably more cordial letter from Hopton compared with the bitter letter from Crawford??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.235.118.50 (talk) 10:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Alton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110211201827/http://www.localauthoritypublishing.co.uk:80/councils/alton/battle.html to http://www.localauthoritypublishing.co.uk/councils/alton/battle.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Template:Tlx).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)