Sir William Waller MP Second-In-Command

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

The Parliamentary Army at The Battle of Cheriton 29 March 1644 Commander-in-Chief: Sir William Waller M.P. Second-in-Command: Sir William Balfour Sergeant-Major General of Foot: Andrew Potley Lieutenant-General of Horse: vacant? The 'Western' Army: Sir William Waller's Regiment of Horse(11 troops) Sir Arthur Haselrigge's Regiment of Horse (7 troops) Colonel Jonas Vandruske's Regiment of Horse (6 troops) Colonel Richard Turner's Regiment of Horse (4 troops present) under the command of Colonel George Thompson Sir William Waller's Regiment of Foot (8 companies) Sir Arthur Haselrigge's Regiment of Foot (5+ companies) under the command of Lt Colonel John Birch Major-General Andrew Potley's Regiment of Foot (4+ companies) The Southern Association Regiments: Sir Edward Cooke's Regiment of Horse (4 troops) under the command of Lt Colonel Thorpe Colonel Richard Norton's Regiment of Horse (troops present) Sir Michael Livesey's Regiment of Horse (5 troops present) Colonel Ralph Weldon's Regiment of Foot (11 companies) Colonel Samuel Jones' Regiment of Foot (6? companies present) under the command of Lt Colonel Jeremy Baines The London Brigade: under the command of Major-General Richard Browne The White Regiment of the London Trained Bands (7 companies) The Yellow Regiment of the London Trained Bands (7 companies) Sir William Balfour's Brigade of the Earl of Essex' Army: Sir William Balfour's Regiment of Horse (6 troops)* Sir John Meldrum's Regiment of Horse* Colonel John Middleton's Regiment of Horse* Coloenl John Dalbier's Regiment of Horse* Colonel Adam Cunningham's Regiment of Dragoons** The Train: under the command of Colonel James Wemyss 16 or 17 pieces including: 1 demi-culverin called 'Kill Cow' 3 drakes, from the Leadenhall Store 1 'demi-culverin drake' (?) 1 1 saker * These four regiments totalled 22 troops. ** Editor's Note: There is no trace of such a regiment elsewhere - this is almost certainly Cunningham's Regiment of Foot mounted as a regiment of dragoons for this expedition only. Adair, Dr. J., Cheriton, 1644, Kineton 1973 2 .

Copy Link

Recommended publications

LANSDOWN BATTLE and CAMPAIGN Lansdown Hill 5Th July
LANSDOWN BATTLE AND CAMPAIGN Information from The UK Battlefields Resource Centre Provided by The Battlefields Trust http://battlefieldstrust.com/ Report compiled by: Glenn Foard: 29/05/2004 Site visit: 21/05/2004 Lansdown Hill 5th July 1643 By late May 1643 Sir William Waller’s army, based around Bath, was parliament’s main defence against the advance out of the South West of a royalist army under Sir Ralph Hopton. After several probing moves to the south and east of the city, the armies finally engaged on the 5th July. Waller had taken a commanding position on Lansdown Hill. He sent troops forward to skirmish with the royalist cavalry detachments and finally forced the royalists to deploy and then to engage. After initial success on Tog Hill, a mile or more to the north, his forces were eventually forced to retreat. Now Hopton took the initiative and made direct and flanking attacks up the steep slopes of Lansdown Hill. Despite heavy losses amongst the regiments of horse and foot in the centre, under musket and artillery fire, the royalists finally gained a foothold on the scarp edge. Repeated cavalry charges failed to dislodge them and Waller was finally forced to retire, as he was outflanked by attacks through the woods on either side. He retreated a few hundred yards to the cover of a wall across the narrowest point of the plateau. As darkness fell the fire-fight continued. Neither army would move from the cover they had found and both armies contemplated retreat. Late that night, under the cover of darkness, it was the parliamentarians who abandoned their position.
[Show full text]
POLITICS, SOCIETY and CIVIL WAR in WARWICKSHIRE, 162.0-1660 Cambridge Studies in Early Modern British History
Cambridge Studies in Early Modern British History POLITICS, SOCIETY AND CIVIL WAR IN WARWICKSHIRE, 162.0-1660 Cambridge Studies in Early Modern British History Series editors ANTHONY FLETCHER Professor of History, University of Durham JOHN GUY Reader in British History, University of Bristol and JOHN MORRILL Lecturer in History, University of Cambridge, and Fellow and Tutor of Selwyn College This is a new series of monographs and studies covering many aspects of the history of the British Isles between the late fifteenth century and the early eighteenth century. It will include the work of established scholars and pioneering work by a new generation of scholars. It will include both reviews and revisions of major topics and books which open up new historical terrain or which reveal startling new perspectives on familiar subjects. It is envisaged that all the volumes will set detailed research into broader perspectives and the books are intended for the use of students as well as of their teachers. Titles in the series The Common Peace: Participation and the Criminal Law in Seventeenth-Century England CYNTHIA B. HERRUP Politics, Society and Civil War in Warwickshire, 1620—1660 ANN HUGHES London Crowds in the Reign of Charles II: Propaganda and Politics from the Restoration to the Exclusion Crisis TIM HARRIS Criticism and Compliment: The Politics of Literature in the Reign of Charles I KEVIN SHARPE Central Government and the Localities: Hampshire 1649-1689 ANDREW COLEBY POLITICS, SOCIETY AND CIVIL WAR IN WARWICKSHIRE, i620-1660 ANN HUGHES Lecturer in History, University of Manchester The right of the University of Cambridge to print and sell all manner of books was granted by Henry VIII in 1534.
[Show full text]
Sir William and Lady Ann Brockman of Beachborough, Newington by Hythe
http://kentarchaeology.org.uk/research/archaeologia-cantiana/ Kent Archaeological Society is a registered charity number 223382 © 2017 Kent Archaeological Society SIR WILLIAM AND LADY ANN BROCKMAN OF BEACHBOROUGH, NEWINGTON BY HYTHE. A ROYALIST FAMILY'S EXPERIENCE OF THE CIVIL WAR GILES DRAKE-BROCKMAN A brief note in the 1931 volume ofArchaeologia Cantiana describes how a collection of papers belonging to the Brockman family of Beachborough, Newington by Hythe, had come to light and been presented to the British Library-.1 Tlie most illustrious member of this family was Sir William Brockman (1595-1654). Sir William had attended the Middle Temple in London (although it is not known if he qualified as a lawyer) and went on to hold a significant position in county society in Kent including being appointed Sheriff in 1642 (but see below). However he is best known for the noble part he played on the Royalist side in the Battle of Maidstone in 1648. In fact. Sir William's involvement in hostilities against Parliament had begun much earlier, soon after the Civil War broke out. The king had raised his standard at Nottingham and formally declared war against the Parliamentarians on 22 August 1642. The first b a t t l e took place at Edgehill in September 1642 with the Royalists gaining victory. However, when the king's anny advanced on London it was met by a large defence force and in mid-November the king withdrew to Oxford. It was at this point that Brockman endeavoured to raise a rebellion against Parliament in Kent. He was sent a commission of array by the king at Oxford while the earl of Tlianet was despatched with a regiment through Sussex to support Mm.
[Show full text]
The Fusilier Origins in Tower Hamlets the Tower Was the Seat of Royal
The Fusilier Origins in Tower Hamlets The Tower was the seat of Royal power, in addition to being the Sovereign’s oldest palace, it was the holding prison for competitors and threats, and the custodian of the Sovereign’s monopoly of armed force until the consolidation of the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich in 1805. As such, the Tower Hamlets’ traditional provision of its citizens as a loyal garrison to the Tower was strategically significant, as its possession and protection influenced national history. Possession of the Tower conserved a foothold in the capital, even for a sovereign who had lost control of the City or Westminster. As such, the loyalty of the Constable and his garrison throughout the medieval, Tudor and Stuart eras was critical to a sovereign’s (and from 1642 to 1660, Parliament’s) power-base. The ancient Ossulstone Hundred of the County of Middlesex was that bordering the City to the north and east. With the expansion of the City in the later Medieval period, Ossulstone was divided into four divisions; the Tower Division, also known as Tower Hamlets. The Tower Hamlets were the military jurisdiction of the Constable of the Tower, separate from the lieutenancy powers of the remainder of Middlesex. Accordingly, the Tower Hamlets were sometimes referred to as a county-within-a-county. The Constable, with the ex- officio appointment of Lord Lieutenant of Tower Hamlets, held the right to call upon citizens of the Tower Hamlets to fulfil garrison guard duty at the Tower. Early references of the unique responsibility of the Tower Hamlets during the reign of Bloody Mary show that in 1554 the Privy Council ordered Sir Richard Southwell and Sir Arthur Darcye to muster the men of the Tower Hamlets "whiche owe their service to the Towre, and to give commaundement that they may be in aredynes for the defence of the same”1.
[Show full text]
Bills of Attainder
University at Buffalo School of Law Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship Winter 2016 Bills of Attainder Matthew Steilen University at Buffalo School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/journal_articles Part of the Legal History Commons Recommended Citation Matthew Steilen, Bills of Attainder, 53 Hous. L. Rev. 767 (2016). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/journal_articles/123 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLE BILLS OF ATTAINDER Matthew Steilen* ABSTRACT What are bills of attainder? The traditional view is that bills of attainder are legislation that punishes an individual without judicial process. The Bill of Attainder Clause in Article I, Section 9 prohibits the Congress from passing such bills. But what about the President? The traditional view would seem to rule out application of the Clause to the President (acting without Congress) and to executive agencies, since neither passes bills. This Article aims to bring historical evidence to bear on the question of the scope of the Bill of Attainder Clause. The argument of the Article is that bills of attainder are best understood as a summary form of legal process, rather than a legislative act. This argument is based on a detailed historical reconstruction of English and early American practices, beginning with a study of the medieval Parliament rolls, year books, and other late medieval English texts, and early modern parliamentary diaries and journals covering the attainders of Elizabeth Barton under Henry VIII and Thomas Wentworth, earl of Strafford, under Charles I.
[Show full text]
Chapter VIII Witchcraft As Ma/Efice: Witchcraft Case Studies, the Third Phase of the Welsh Antidote to Witchcraft
251. Chapter VIII Witchcraft as Ma/efice: Witchcraft Case Studies, The Third Phase of The Welsh Antidote to Witchcraft. Witchcraft as rna/efice cases were concerned specifically with the practice of witchcraft, cases in which a woman was brought to court charged with being a witch, accused of practising rna/efice or premeditated harm. The woman was not bringing a slander case against another. She herself was being brought to court by others who were accusing her of being a witch. Witchcraft as rna/efice cases in early modem Wales were completely different from those witchcraft as words cases lodged in the Courts of Great Sessions, even though they were often in the same county, at a similar time and heard before the same justices of the peace. The main purpose of this chapter is to present case studies of witchcraft as ma/efice trials from the various court circuits in Wales. Witchcraft as rna/efice cases in Wales reflect the general type of early modern witchcraft cases found in other areas of Britain, Europe and America, those with which witchcraft historiography is largely concerned. The few Welsh cases are the only cases where a woman was being accused of witchcraft practices. Given the profound belief system surrounding witches and witchcraft in early modern Wales, the minute number of these cases raises some interesting historical questions about attitudes to witches and ways of dealing with witchcraft. The records of the Courts of Great Sessions1 for Wales contain very few witchcraft as rna/efice cases, sometimes only one per county. The actual number, however, does not detract from the importance of these cases in providing a greater understanding of witchcraft typology for early modern Wales.
[Show full text]
St Catherine's College Oxford
MESSAGES The Year St Catherine’s College . Oxford 2013 ST CATHERINE’S COLLEGE 2013/75 MESSAGES Master and Fellows 2013 MASTER Susan C Cooper, MA (BA Richard M Berry, MA, DPhil Bart B van Es (BA, MPhil, Angela B Brueggemann, Gordon Gancz, BM BCh, MA Collby Maine, PhD California) Tutor in Physics PhD Camb) DPhil (BSc St Olaf, MSc Fellow by Special Election Professor Roger W Professor of Experimental Reader in Condensed Tutor in English Iowa) College Doctor Ainsworth, MA, DPhil, Physics Matter Physics Senior Tutor Fellow by Special Election in FRAeS Biological Sciences Geneviève A D M Peter R Franklin, MA (BA, Ashok I Handa, MA (MB BS Tommaso Pizzari, MA (BSc Wellcome Trust Career Helleringer (Maîtrise FELLOWS DPhil York) Lond), FRCS Aberd, PhD Shef) Development Fellow ESSEC, JD Columbia, Maîtrise Tutor in Music Fellow by Special Election in Tutor in Zoology Sciences Po, Maîtrise, Richard J Parish, MA, DPhil Professor of Music Medicine James E Thomson, MChem, Doctorat Paris-I Panthéon- (BA Newc) Reader in Surgery Byron W Byrne, MA, DPhil DPhil Sorbonne, Maîtrise Paris-II Tutor in French John Charles Smith, MA Tutor for Graduates (BCom, BEng Western Fellow by Special Election in Panthéon-Assas) Philip Spencer Fellow Tutor in French Linguistics Australia) Chemistry Fellow by Special Election Professor of French President of the Senior James L Bennett, MA (BA Tutor in Engineering Science in Law (Leave H14) Common Room Reading) Tutor for Admissions Andrew J Bunker, MA, DPhil Leverhulme Trust Early Fellow by Special Election Tutor in Physics
[Show full text]
47. Battle of Cheriton
THE BATTLE OF CHERITON by Peter Hoggarth. The battle of Cheriton, or "Cheriton Fight", is our most important local battle. It took place on 29th March 1644 during the English Civil war between Charles I and Parliament. Although not as well known as the important Civil War battles of Naseby and Marston Moor, some historians regard it as the turning point in the Civil War. Before Cheriton the Royalists were generally on the offensive; after Cheriton they had adopted a defensive posture. Hampshire occupied an important strategic position between the rival forces. Generally speaking the west and north of England supported the Royalists whilst the east and most of the Midlands supported Parliament. In the south the counties to the west of Hampshire were largely Royalist and Sussex, Kent and Surrey were largely for Parliament. Some isolated towns, including ports, held out in hostile territory. The King's headquarters were at Oxford, and those of Parliament were based in London. The town commanders who were to face each other at Cheriton were Lord Hopton for the King and Sir William Waller for Parliament. Friends as young men they had taken different sides in the Civil War. Hopton had beaten Waller at Roundway Down near Devizes and at Lansdown near Bath, whilst Waller had been victorious at Alton. Both were anxious to "tangle" again. In September 1643 Lord Hopton was directed by the king to take a new army from the west of England to secure Dorset, Wiltshire and Hampshire and then to advance on London. The main Royalist army would move from Oxford to London and Parliament would be trapped in what we would now call a pincer movement.
[Show full text]
The Church of All Saints Eastchurch in Shepey Robertson
http://kentarchaeology.org.uk/research/archaeologia-cantiana/ Kent Archaeological Society is a registered charity number 223382 © 2017 Kent Archaeological Society ( 374 ) THE OHUBOH OE ALL SAINTS, EASTOHUBCH IN SHEPEY. BY CANON SOOTT ROBERTSON. THE Church of All Saints at Eastchurch has especial interest for antiquaries and students of architecture, because the date of its erection is known. During the ninth year of King Henry VI,* in . November 1431, the chief parishioner, William Cheyne, esquire, of Shirland, obtained the King's license (needful to override the law of mortmain) to give three roods of land, to the Patronsf of East- church Eectory, in order that a new parish church might thereon be built. The soil of Shepey, being London clay, affords no enduring foundation for any edifice. Houses and churches erected on it are in continual peril from the subsidence of the soil; their walls crack in all directions, unless artificial foundations are deeply and solidly laid before any building is commenced. The royal license granted to William Cheyne mentions the fact that the old church at East- church had gone to ruin " by reason of the sudden weakness of the foundation." Consequently, before the Abbot of Boxley began to build a new church, upon the fresh site given by "William Cheyne, he caused deep and solid foundations of chalk to be laid. Wherever a wall was to stand, a wide trench was dug, some feet deep, and it was filled with solid blocks of chalk, brought from the mainland of Kent; thus firm foundations were obtained. Still further to support the walls, diagonal buttresses were constructed at every angle of the building; and three porches (north, south, and west) were erected, with diagonal buttresses at each of their angles; affording much additional support to the walls and to the western tower.
[Show full text]
Battle-Scarred: Surgery, Medicine and Military Welfare During the British Civil Wars Exhibition at the National Civil War Centre, Newark Museum
CENTRE FOR ENGLISH CENTRE FOR ENGLISH LOCAL HISTORY LOCAL HISTORY Battle-Scarred: Surgery, Medicine and Military Welfare during the British Civil Wars Exhibition at the National Civil War Centre, Newark Museum Guest curators: Dr Eric Gruber von Arni and Dr Andrew Hopper This document was published in October 2017. The University of Leicester endeavours to ensure that the content of its prospectus, programme specification, website content and all other materials are complete and accurate. On occasion it may be necessary to make some alterations to particular aspects of a course or module, and where these are minor, for example altering the lecture timetable or location, then we will ensure that you have as much notice as possible of the change to ensure that the disruption to your studies is minimised. However, in exceptional circumstances Printed by Print Services, it may be necessary for the University to cancel or change a programme or part of the specification more substantially. For example, due to the University of Leicester, unavailability of key teaching staff, changes or developments in knowledge or teaching methods, the way in which assessment is carried out, using vegetable based inks or where a course or part of it is over-subscribed to the extent that the quality of teaching would be affected to the detriment of students. In on FSC certified stock these circumstances, we will contact you as soon as possible and in any event will give you 25 days written notice before the relevant change is due to take place. Where this occurs, we will also and in consultation with you, offer you an alternative course or programme (as appropriate) or the opportunity to cancel your contract with the University and obtain a refund of any advance payments that you have made.
[Show full text]
The Royalist and Parliamentarian War Effort in Shropshire During the First and Second English Civil Wars, 1642-1648
The Royalist and Parliamentarian War Effort in Shropshire During the First and Second English Civil Wars, 1642-1648 Item Type Thesis or dissertation Authors Worton, Jonathan Citation Worton, J. (2015). The royalist and parliamentarian war effort in Shropshire during the first and second English civil wars, 1642-1648. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Chester, United Kingdom. Publisher University of Chester Download date 24/09/2021 00:57:51 Item License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10034/612966 The Royalist and Parliamentarian War Effort in Shropshire During the First and Second English Civil Wars, 1642-1648 Thesis submitted in accordance with the requirements of The University of Chester For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy By Jonathan Worton June 2015 ABSTRACT The Royalist and Parliamentarian War Effort in Shropshire During the First and Second English Civil Wars, 1642-1648 Jonathan Worton Addressing the military organisation of both Royalists and Parliamentarians, the subject of this thesis is an examination of war effort during the mid-seventeenth century English Civil Wars by taking the example of Shropshire. The county was contested during the First Civil War of 1642-6 and also saw armed conflict on a smaller scale during the Second Civil War of 1648. This detailed study provides a comprehensive bipartisan analysis of military endeavour, in terms of organisation and of the engagements fought. Drawing on numerous primary sources, it explores: leadership and administration; recruitment and the armed forces; military finance; supply and logistics; and the nature and conduct of the fighting.
[Show full text]
Episcopal Tombs in Early Modern England
Jnl of Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 55, No. 4, October 2004. f 2004 Cambridge University Press 654 DOI: 10.1017/S0022046904001502 Printed in the United Kingdom Episcopal Tombs in Early Modern England by PETER SHERLOCK The Reformation simultaneously transformed the identity and role of bishops in the Church of England, and the function of monuments to the dead. This article considers the extent to which tombs of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century bishops represented a set of episcopal ideals distinct from those conveyed by the monuments of earlier bishops on the one hand and contemporary laity and clergy on the other. It argues that in death bishops were increasingly undifferentiated from other groups such as the gentry in the dress, posture, location and inscriptions of their monuments. As a result of the inherent tension between tradition and reform which surrounded both bishops and tombs, episcopal monuments were unsuccessful as a means of enhancing the status or preserving the memory and teachings of their subjects in the wake of the Reformation. etween 1400 and 1700, some 466 bishops held office in England and Wales, for anything from a few months to several decades.1 The B majority died peacefully in their beds, some fading into relative obscurity. Others, such as Richard Scrope, Thomas Cranmer and William Laud, were executed for treason or burned for heresy in one reign yet became revered as saints, heroes or martyrs in another. Throughout these three centuries bishops played key roles in the politics of both Church and PRO=Public Record Office; TNA=The National Archives I would like to thank Craig D’Alton, Felicity Heal, Clive Holmes, Ralph Houlbrooke, Judith Maltby, Keith Thomas and the anonymous reader for this JOURNAL for their comments on this article.
[Show full text]