Talk:Battle of Carbisdale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force

Can I just ask why this article keeps going missing. It is not in any violation of copyright. Does it have to have a particular profile or format or something ?

Is this not cleaned up yet ?

[edit] The Key to Victory

I've considerably rewriten this article to eliminate much of the verbal undergrowth, which only obscured the simple facts behind the battle. It is important to understand that Montrose's failure to send out scouts and Strachan's use of the terrain combined to provide the key to the Covenanter victory. None of this appears in the previous version. There were a number of other errors of fact and interpretation. For those who have an interest in these matters I detail as follows;

1. Montrose can hardly have 'supported' Charles I in April 1650 for the simple reason that he had been dead for more than a year.

2. Argyll had a temporary understanding with Cromwell after the defeat of Hamilton and the Engagers at the Battle of Preston. The execution of the king in January 1649, in the teeth of Scottish objections, broke this alliance, such as it was. Argyll was just as royalist as Montrose. It was a question of degree.

3. Leslie was not at Carbisdale, and Strachan's force was composed mainly of cavalry, with the additional support of some local clansmen. If Montrose had a second-in-command that position would have been occupied by John Hurry, not Lisle.

4. The role of the Orcadian infantry gets no mention at all in the former version. It was their quick and total collapse that turned Carbisdale into a rout.

5. The Argyll government, as I have said, was always royalist. It did not 'switch sides' after Carbisdale. Under the terms of the Treaty of Breda Charles agreed to accept the Covenants, which was always an essential precondition for turning the crown de jure to the crown de facto. Rcpaterson 01:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)