This article is within the scope of WikiProject Warwickshire, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Warwickshire. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.WarwickshireWikipedia:WikiProject WarwickshireTemplate:WikiProject WarwickshireWikiProject Warwickshire articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Regarding the removal, re-addition and removal of:
"was the opening engagement of the conflict".
Edgehill was preceeded by the seige of Hull, therefore this comment cannot be considered correct.
Nonetheless some remark on the significance of this battle in the context of the war ought to be made. "First major engagement"? "First set-piece battle"? Or what? Gdr 09:26, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)
The following sub-sections were taken from the Edge Hill page which was becomming an alternative battle page. Please merge in any information which is useful into this article:
grid referenceSP355486. Zoom out one step. The narrow wood on the scarp of Edge Hill, in the south-east overlooks the lower slope and the plain on which the battle was fought. The King's army started the day on the plateau above the scarp and Parliament's front line was about two kilometres away. From Edge Hill, the ground drops steeply, levels out, then rises a little to Battleton Holt and a little beyond it, The Oaks and Graveground Copice. It was across the latter two that Parliament's army was drawn up (SP346485 to SP367498). The King's forces descended from the scarp and faced them, extended between the end of the spur at Knowle End and Brixfield Farm (SP349472 to SP376491). At the time of the battle, there were many fewer trees.
I would advise against this section (which is incorrect in its detail anyway) and as the battlefield has undergone a major revision by renowned battle archeologist Glenn Foard (and the Battlefields Trust) since the major survey of 2004/2007. I hope to provide historic terrain detail shortly and an additional plan/map reflecting the latest research. Perhaps unbelievably most books feature deployment plans which have always only been highly speculative and plagued with "issues" - "Edgehill" being famously debated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.193.107 (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fundamentally, each commander was seeking to destroy the other's forces so gaining military control of the country, hence political control. In the short term, the king was aiming to clear his way to London. Essex, the Parliamentary commander, aimed to stop him.
Having learned where the King was, Essex, approaching from the west, found the King on the plateau above the scarp of Edge Hill. Essex required the King to come to him in the plain.
The King was nominally in command of his troops but in effect, the command was by a small de facto committee with the King as chairman. At the outset of the battle, one member, the Earl of Lindsey, who had been appointed to command the infantry, having been over-ruled, resigned that command, withdrawing to the command of his own regiment.
Why is there NO mention of the paranormal aftermath of this battle? It was widely publicized at the time -- its written in contemporary history, its not just some urban legend. Dozens and dozens of witnesses. Here's a blurb I found on it: Perhaps the most well-known, most extensively documented, and most substantially witnessed was the Phantom Battle of Edge Hill which was "refought" on several consecutive weekends during the Christmas season of 1642. The actual battle was waged near the village of Keinton, England, on October 23 between the Royalist Army of King Charles and the Parliamentary Army under the Earl of Essex.
It was on Christmas Eve that several countryfolk were awakened by the noises of violent battle. Fearing that it could only be another clash between soldiers that had come to desecrate the sanctity of the holy evening and the peace of their countryside, the villagers fled from their homes to confront two armies of phantoms. One side bore the king's colors; the other, Parliament's banners. Until three o'clock in the morning, the phantom soldiers restaged the terrible fighting of two months before.
The actual battle had resulted in defeat for King Charles, and the monarch grew greatly disturbed when he heard that two armies of ghosts were determined to remind the populace that the Parliamentary forces had triumphed at Edge Hill. The king suspected that certain Parliamentary sympathizers had fabricated the tale to cause him embarrassment. The king sent three of his most trusted officers to squelch the matter. When the emissaries returned to court, they swore oaths that they themselves had witnessed the clash of the phantom armies. On two consecutive nights, they had watched the ghostly reconstruction and had even recognized several of their comrades who had fallen that day. --98.232.236.134 (talk) 04:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Primary Source for these claims is a pamphlet printed in 1643 called "A Great Wonder in Heaven". This is reproduced in part and in full in several secondary sources accessible via Google Books. It should be noted, while several sources consider this to be the one official ghost sighting in the UK, the author is unknown, the Royalist officers are never mentioned by name, and the people of quality mentioned are fictitious. The latter can be established by WP:OR, although some paranormal articles (one available via Google Books) also point this out. Some internet articles also point out it is a similar theme as to others printed at the time that were parables rather than reports of actual events. I would say it should be added to the article as the story has been heavily reprinted since at least the 1800s, but given no undue weight considering it was made up and has no basis in reality.172.96.34.206 (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I could also commend a 1970s book, author forgotten, A Casebook of Military Mystery, in which I do recall reading a chapter of paranormal aspects relating to the battle. It majored on a ghost sighting recalled in the 1930s.CloptonsonUser talk:Cloptonson|talk]]) 21:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
