Talk:New Model Army

Army of the Republic

Unresolved

 – Information still not added to article and lead yet.

Some sources refer to the New Model Army during the Protectorate as the "Army of the Republic" - see for example Martyn Bennett, "The English Civil War" (Ditchfield, 1992). Should this alternative name be addded to the article under the Interregnum section?

Yes, since it is clearly sourceable. It should also appear in the WP:LEAD, in boldface, as an alternative term. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

New Market ?

Resolved

 – Ambiguity in article has been corrected.

The article refers to "a rendezvous (meeting) near New Market on Friday 4 June 1647". New Market points to a disambiguation page. There is no "New Market" in England, but three "Newmarket":

• Newmarket, Derbyshire
• Newmarket, Gloucestershire
• Newmarket, Suffolk

Which of these is meant here? TiffaF 08:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Rank hierarchy

Unresolved

 – Information not added yet.

Could somebody add information about the rank hierarchy of the New Model Army, such as the names of the various service grades, and their duties?--Tabun1015 13:57, 28 Febreeeeeeee

Nathaniel Rich

Resolved

 – Off-topic, and in violation of WP:NOT.

Can anyone tell me whether Colonel Nathaniel Rich who was in the Civil War, was a relation of Robert Rich, the merchant adventurer during James I's reign, please? Also, where can I find a picture of Nathaniel Rich?82.45.83.192 19:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not the Nathaniel Rich nor Robert Rich article, and Wikipedia's talk pages are for article improvement discussions only, meanwhile Wikipedia is not a forum for genealogical research questions nor any other forms of advice, how-to, guidance or other non-encyclopedic purposes. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

E-radio show

Resolved

 – No editor interest in over a year and a half.

listen to this for additional info

  203.184.35.187 12:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

On what? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Execution of the Levellers

Resolved

 – Correction made and unchallenged for over a year.

A minor change - the Levellers executed in Burford were shot, not hanged. There's source material for this in various newsbooks of the day, with secondary descriptions in books like Antonia Fraser's "Cromwell". Bedesboy (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

POV

The following sentence is currently in the article and it expresses a certain bias: "Cromwell and the other commanders of the Army were not trained in siege warfare and generally tried to take fortified towns by storm rather than go through the complex and time-consuming process of building earthworks and trenches around it so that batteries of cannon could be brought close to the walls to pound it into surrender."

Cromwell was not a trained cavalry man either! There is no evidence that his choice of a quick storm at certain times was due to his lack of knowledge and it does not explain his part in prolonged the sieges during the Second English Civil War of Pembroke Castle and Pontefract Castle.

Usually Cromwell and others did not just rush up to a fortress and escalade the walls as is implied. Take for example the three sieges of Basing House. Cromwell stormed the place after he arrived with a siege train capable of making an effective breach!

If one reads the next sentence "The Army generally performed well when storming fortifications, for example at the siege of Drogheda," after reading the first sentence in the section one would have thought that Cromwell arrived in front of Drogheda and decided to storm it by escalade because that is all he knew how to do. But Cromwell explains his haste in a letter to the Speaker of the House of Commons:

The officers and soldiers of this Garrison [of Drogheda] were the flower of their Army. And their great expectation was, that our attempting this place would put fair to ruin us: they being confident of the resolution of their men, and the advantage of the place. If we had divided our force into two quarters to have besieged the North Town and the South Town, we could not have had such a correspondency between the two parts of our Army, but that they might have chosen to have brought their Army, and have fought with which part 'of ours' they pleased,—and at the same time have made a sally with 2,000 men upon us, and have left their walls manned; they having in the Town the number hereafter specified, but some say near 4,000. (Cromwell letter to William Lenthall (17 September 1649))

This is not a letter from a man who knows nothing of the art of siege warfare. Further anyone would think that the defenders of Drogheda were incompetent but they built a Coupure (as was done at the siege of Clonmel). Drogheda's coupure had three lines of re-entrenchments inside the breach and in the fortunes of war if Cromwell had fallen mortally wounded instead of the Royalist Colonel of the regiment defending the breach then things may have well gone differently.

These were men (on both sides) who were knowledgeable the arts of siege warfare. To dismiss "Cromwell and the other commanders of the Army [as] not trained in siege warfare" is like saying because the British Army arrived in front of the Pettah of Ahmednagar in the morning, examine the walls, carry them, killed all the garrison and then had breakfast" had a general who new next to nothing about siege warfare. -- PBS (talk) 04:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that the section is misleading, it is clear that by the Drogheda siege the Parliamentarians had developed an innate understanding of offensive siege warfare i.e taking out tall structures to deprive the enemy of vantage points, it also might be noted on a broader level the understanding of the psychological aspect to siege warfare which is evident in the early stages of the Irish campaign.

However, I wonder if the writer of the offending passage was clumsily trying to say something else... I am reminded of a comment by Castlehaven, who thought that the only 'regular' siege in Ireland during the Eleven Years War was the 1645 siege of Duncannon. Why Castlehaven distinguished this siege from the others I am not entirely sure but I would be wary of dismissing his opinion. Inchiquin (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

To sources in the general references section not attached to in-line citations

I have removed the following books from the references section as the are not currently cited. They are placed here for ease of access in case they were added to support some of thr article's text but the editor forgot to include an in-line citation.

• Gentles, Ian (1994). The New Model Army – In England, Ireland and Scotland 1645–53. Oxford: Blackwell Press.
• Ohlmeyer, Jane; Kenyon, John, eds. (1998). The Civil Wars. Oxford.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

-- PBS (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Grandees

When I search for Grandee, I'm taken to a sort of hybrid disambiguation article containing the section #Grandee (New Model Army), which has three sentences telling me briefly which faction of the New Model Army were called Grandees. The {{main}} link on that section points to this article. Great.

In this article, when I Ctrl-f to find out about the Grandees, I see that they appear in the narrative in the section New Model Army#Second English Civil War without explanation. As a novice to this subject, I find it odd that, in order to see the term defined before it's used, I have to arrive via disambiguation.

A bold edit that might resolve the problem would be to copy the three sentences from Grandee into the section where Grandees are talked about in this article, but that seems crude, and inconsistent with decent writing. I'm uncomfortable doing much editing because of my broad ignorance of the subject. The issue, to be clear, is that the word "Grandee" is first used in this article in a way that is confusing to anyone who doesn't already know who the Grandees were.

Can anyone knowledgeable about this topic address this issue, please? I'll probably research it a bit more, and if I'm able to make an informed edit before someone qualified gets to it, then I'll do my best. I think, however, that our readers would profit more from the contribution of an amateur historian than that of a professional mathematician. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Errant links

I removed the link to "Southern Association" in the table of units. If there was a Southern Association of counties providing militia/volunteers on the same lines as the well-known Eastern Association, that's fine, but I'm not aware of it. The link, at any rate, led to an article about a Southern US baseball league by that name.

There seem to be quite a lot of these non-relevant links scattered around Wikipedia right now. Random noter (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)