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
Turnham Green: This should be a geographical page first, then a historical page regarding the battle. This page is linked from A4 road (Great Britain). The area is the commercial (retail) center of ChiswickinWest London.
This section has no references, and seems factually questionable. Locusts are not found in the UK, earwigs would hardly constitute a threat to the progress of a conflict surely? Bwcajp (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why I'm the first to write on this talk page, the article was already tagged for expansion.
I am repeating this question on the advice of another user, from Talk:First English Civil War: This article states that the Royalist and Parliamentarian armies did not in fact fight at this battle - it was a stand-off. This is supported by Michael Robbins's book "Middlesex" pages 94-95, which states that the Royalist withdrawal was on 13 November 1642.
However, Warwick Draper's "Chiswick" pages 66-68 and 202-207 quotes in full a contemporary source saying that Prince Rupert returned after the main withdrawal and did fight the Parliamentarians on 12 November, with the loss of 800 Royalist and 120 Parliamentarian soldiers. The source is listed in Draper's appendix as being from a contemporary pamphlet in the British Museum, with spelling modernised and 'Rupert' substituted for 'Robert'. The modernisation etc is attributed to a Mr. Whitear.
Does anyone know what is happening here? Is the pamphlet now discredited, or is it simply unsupported by other documents? The wording of the pamphlet is very partial, and I would expect exaggeration of the numbers killed, but is the battle itself imaginary? If it is discredited, perhaps a note to that effect would reassure any readers (like me) who are very far from expert in this field. Patche99z 15:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this link http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/military/1642-edgehill.htm It is suggested there that the battle you are referring to is Battle of Brentford (1642) "On 12 November, Prince Rupert launched a surprise attack on Parliament's outpost at Brentford under cover of an early morning mist. The regiments of Denzil Holles and Lord Brooke were overwhelmed and Rupert's cavaliers sacked Brentford, capturing 500 prisoners, 15 guns and 11 colours." It would suggest that the time line was:
12 November Royalist Cavalry advanced party fought with a garrison at Brenford in an engagement known as the Battle of Brentford . They then sacked Brenford which encouraged those Londoners who feared for their property to side with the Parliamentarians.
13 November Essex army with the London trained bands and other London citizenry an army of around 24,000 assemble on Chelsey Field and advance to Turnham Green, where they outface the main Royalists army in an engagement known as the Battle of Turnham Green. The Royalists recognise that seizing London is beyond their grasp and retreat. (additional information from Civil War:The wars of the Three Kingdoms by Trevor Royle 202-207)
Your source seems to be confused as to the timeline and places but not the dates of the actions. --PBS 16:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - interesting links. The possible confusion arises from the 1500-word contemporary pamphlet quoted by Draper. That clearly puts the action at Turnham Green on 12th November, not mentioning Brentford - so either the date or location must be in error. The pamphlet details a 2-3 hour skirmish, then the arrival of more Parliamentarian troops, and further battle during the 12th. Overnight, there were feints by the Royalists, and on the 13th, the Parliamentarians counted the dead, there was some minor skirmishing, and the Royalists withdrew under cover of their cavalry, crossing the Thames into Surrey on the Monday 14th. It is presented as a Parliamentarian victory.
If the pamphleteer was confused between Brentford and Turnham Green, would he have made his account into a Parliamentarian victory, when it was not? Well yes, he might have - he was very biassed against the Royalists, calling them the Malignants. But he missed out the sacking of Brentford, which would have given him an opportunity to revile the Royalists. Another possible interpretation is that there was in fact some skirmishing at Turnham Green on say 13th, and that the pamphleteer has written this up as a full-blown battle, getting the date wrong by a day. This seems more likely to me, but I am not a historian.
Either way, I think it is worth while having this brief discussion on this page, for the benefit of anyone else who reads Draper's book and spots the problem.
Thank you again. Patche99z 11:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[M]any officers wanted to open peace negotiations, contrary to Rupert's desire to carry on to London; the King agreed with the officers, and the Earl of Essex was able to ready the defence of London with the Parliamentarian army.
That appears to mean that the King wanted to open peace negotiations. If so, why didn't he? Valetude (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
