On Newcastle

Dear David,

You invite me to respond to Stuart Reid's animadversions on the Colonelcy of the Marquis of Newcastle's Foot Regiment in ECWN&Q #3.

Mr. Reid is so determined to prove me wrong about Sir William Lambton that he not only gets himself into rather a muddle but also indulges in a rather wild flight of fancy, offering an alternative to mine on very flimsy 'evidence' indeed.

Of course Newcastle's own foot regiment could have been commanded by a Colonel: Newcastle was a commanding General, as was Rupert, and Rupert had Col. John Russell to command under him. If Mr. Reid doesn't accept that, he cannot then propose Colonel Kirton in place of Lambton since his own observation confounds him! What I do find unacceptable is Mr. Reid's misrepresentation of my remarks in my MARSTON MOOR, since I put forward in that book certain reasons why I felt Lambton was a good candidate and Mr. Reid makes no effort to explain them away.

He is also inconsistent. On the one hand he clearly has no time for the NEWCASTLE MEMOIRS but does not scruple to use them in the hope they will prove his point. Posthumous Kirton is evidenced twice, one in a Post-restoration sheet and one in Fairfax's dubious and exculpatory personal memoirs of the Northern war- If 'Skirton' may be 'Kirton' I am not convinced a) that anyone called Posthumous Kirton existed or b) that the was a full Colonel. In all the documentation I have studied, both in print and Manuscript form, I cannot find a Kirton with such a forename. MOst officers do surface in some source or another incidental to Civil War documentation, but he does not. Reject Lamberton as the candidate he may, but he ought not to make wild, alternative guesses.

Other points emerge. It demonstrates a lack of understanding...to argue that it could not have been Lambton because he commanded Durham men and Newcastle's foot was a 'Northumbrian' regiment existed outside initial formation, not purely 'Durham' regiment. Further, Thomas Davison, whom Mr. Reid cites as Lambton's Lt. Col., did not serve under Lambton in the Field, but was a Newcastle upon Tyne garrison officer and if he did serve under Lambton, may have been briefly seconded to that regiment in early 1644. Lastly, George Berridge's majority probably post-dates 1650.

Frankly, who was or who was not commander is really rather irrelevant. I am quite happy to be proven wrong about Lambton, but my emphasis is on the word 'proven.' Nevertheless, I look forward to seeing further notes from him.

(Can anyone else with 'Northern' expertise pitch into the fray??? As with all these highly specialist debates- you pays your money and takes your choice! As the magazine was partially set up for this kind of detail we were a bit taken aback by the claim that knowledge of a Civil War regimental commander is 'really rather irrelevant.' I suppose it is very easy to collect 'facts' in vast amounts and fail to give them perspective and relative value. If this, and the fact that valuable space in the magazine should not be taken up with what we think vital, but the majority consider 'petty Squabblings,' is what Dr. Newman meant, then we applaud this sentiment, but will at least print a reply and a few other letters- if any!- Editors)

On Denbigh Green

Dear David,

A bit more information on DENBIGH GREEN (ECW N&Q 3)-

Symonds, in his diary, gives a list of the Royalist Regiments there.

'Ercall Dragoons'= Sir Vincent Corbett's Dragoons.
'Chirk Firelocks'= Sir John Watt's Foot (Originally Ld. Capell's)
'Ludlow Foot'= Sir Michael Woodhouse's Foot.

It is interesting to note that the Royalist army consisted of Cavalrymen and musketeers but no foot.

DENBIGH GREEN

Peter Morris is to be congratulated on his article with the sources available to him. The Royalist losses are difficult to assess, but would appear not to have been as heavy as the Parliamentarians made out.

Lord Byron states 'his (Vaughan's) loss in the late skirmish having been nothing near so great as his disorder; for of all his number both of horse and foot, he wanted not a hundred men, for the repair of which loss, the Archbishop of York was then at Rithland (Rhuddlian) with near 300 horse and foot well armed."

Peter's figures of 2100 Horse & Foot is quite high. Byron gives it as 1500 in total ("as given to me by letters from Sir Wm Vaughan"), though I would opine approx. 920 Horse and 280 foot. At a rendezvous at Llanwyrst on 4th November Vaughan's army totalled 800 Horse and 280 foot- their losses being all Horse.

Sir Wm. Salusbury (Gov. of Denbigh Castle) an eyewitness, wrote to Vaughan on the night of the battle that "the enemy was in his sight double our number" -- say around 2,500 men.

On Re-Enactment Societies

Dear Sirs,

One thing I have noticed in the first few issues is the influence of the Re-enactment societies on the research and opinions in the magazine. This is inevitable I suppose, there being 7,000 people in the 2 main Societies at the moment, with about a 30% turnover of members a year.

There are certain dangers inherent when people seek to relate their own experience with historical research. Both societies have suffered changes in fashion over the years and what is considered 'authentic' depends more upon the whim of the 'experts' and the knowledge and research of the few influential people within the societies, than upon historical fact.

A few years ago the name of De Gheyn was freely used to justify styles 30 years out of date. Now he is out of favour, yet no one questions the credibility of those who mis-quoted him. We have all met the person who states that because he and 4 friends can blast off 4 shots a minute, then the formed ECW Regiment of possibly 400 musketeers could do so. There is also the wargamer who, objecting to a scaled down time of 5 minutes to wheel his unit through 90 degrees says his re-enactment regiment of 16 pike can do it in 10 seconds! Much of the problem lies in the fact that the Re-enactor has to come up with an answer.

Unless you want to appear half-naked, you have to decide what to wear on the basis of information decided, but then this compromise is taken as fact and history is distorted. I hope that the readers of ECW N&Q will not mutely accept everything fed to them in the magazine, but will recognise fact as fact, opinion as opinion.

Reply [ECW N&Q 9].

This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com