The combined forces under the parliamentarians under Lord Fairfax and The Earl of Manchester seemed to defeat the royalists commanded by Price Rupert of The Rhine and The Marquess of Newcastle. Charles I negotiated a cessation in Ireland. Appropriately enough, I have been watching The 3 Musketeers to match my visit to visit you guys as I have watched the full version of this, yesterday.
Civil War soldiers did not have several sets of uniforms; they did not have a daily laundry service; they did not stay overnight in clean, comfortable motels. They had one uniform - if that - and lived in it for months on end - and that uniform became ragged, muddy and verminous very quickly. I would have thought that all of that was very obvious to anyone knowledgeable about ANY war
I wouldn't say any Foot Regiment were superior to any other during the English Civil War, Newcastle's Foot (raised mostly from County Durham and North Yorkshire) did fight a herioc rearguard action at Marston Moor, penned inside the White Sykes Close (an earthen sheep pen) they were shot at by Scottish Dragoons and assaulted by Parliamentarian Horse (doubt Cromwell was part of it). Newcastles troops were known as the Whitecoats because that is what they wore.
Rory Stockley Scotland was also in civil war as well because of the Covenanters who then later sided with Charles and the Scottish royalists against Cromwell
@@Original_Dalvik I wasn't aware of there being a significant amount of Scots royalists in the first war. I suppose you might consider Montrose's army, but if I remember correctly that was mostly Irish. I was under the impression that almost all the Scots signed the covenant and fought on parliament's side, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
@witchhunter32 although prince ruperts regiment of foote were charged many times at naseby but parliarment failed to break their defense untill long after the battle had finished
I think there is a difference because the Kings agreement was for the Scottish troops to invade England, so he could change England, the church and paliament. Parliament's alliance with the Scots was just that, an alliance, not an invasion
@jed371 That gives a justification for execution of the king... sort of. It still doesn't explain why Parliament was able to do that and not get punished also. I guess it would be an executioners pay day.
@fdmarminy because Charles I and later Charles II made an agreement to change England's religion and remove England's parliament in return for using Scottish troops
The combined forces under the parliamentarians under Lord Fairfax and The Earl of Manchester seemed to defeat the royalists commanded by Price Rupert of The Rhine and The Marquess of Newcastle. Charles I negotiated a cessation in Ireland. Appropriately enough, I have been watching The 3 Musketeers to match my visit to visit you guys as I have watched the full version of this, yesterday.
Great visuals. Thank you.
very good clip, in fact, english has civil war reenactment in high level
Civil War soldiers did not have several sets of uniforms; they did not have a daily laundry service; they did not stay overnight in clean, comfortable motels. They had one uniform - if that - and lived in it for months on end - and that uniform became ragged, muddy and verminous very quickly. I would have thought that all of that was very obvious to anyone knowledgeable about ANY war
What’s your point concerning the video
I wouldn't say any Foot Regiment were superior to any other during the English Civil War, Newcastle's Foot (raised mostly from County Durham and North Yorkshire) did fight a herioc rearguard action at Marston Moor, penned inside the White Sykes Close (an earthen sheep pen) they were shot at by Scottish Dragoons and assaulted by Parliamentarian Horse (doubt Cromwell was part of it). Newcastles troops were known as the Whitecoats because that is what they wore.
Why do a lot of people seem to forget that most of Scotland supported the king?
Because they very significantly didn't support the king for the first war, I'd imagine.
Rory Stockley Scotland was also in civil war as well because of the Covenanters who then later sided with Charles and the Scottish royalists against Cromwell
@@Original_Dalvik Yes, but for the first civil war - the longest and bloodiest war - they fought with Parliament
Rory Stockley Not all of them, hence why I said “Scottish royalists” which there were many of
@@Original_Dalvik I wasn't aware of there being a significant amount of Scots royalists in the first war. I suppose you might consider Montrose's army, but if I remember correctly that was mostly Irish. I was under the impression that almost all the Scots signed the covenant and fought on parliament's side, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
@witchhunter32 although prince ruperts regiment of foote were charged many times at naseby but parliarment failed to break their defense untill long after the battle had finished
distorted audio
I have been to Marston moor from David trevena
why so ?
I think there is a difference because the Kings agreement was for the Scottish troops to invade England, so he could change England, the church and paliament. Parliament's alliance with the Scots was just that, an alliance, not an invasion
@jed371 That gives a justification for execution of the king... sort of. It still doesn't explain why Parliament was able to do that and not get punished also. I guess it would be an executioners pay day.
eh
i saw ghost
AHAHAH XD!! go to 0:54 and look at the general in the background that falls over XD
@fdmarminy because Charles I and later Charles II made an agreement to change England's religion and remove England's parliament in return for using Scottish troops