Talk:Battle of Carbisdale

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 27, 2020, April 27, 2023, and April 27, 2024.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: British / European / Early Modern / Wars of the Three Kingdoms 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: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  British military history task force European military history task force Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800) Wars of the Three Kingdoms 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 ?

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)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Carbisdale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060524173705/http://www.scotwars.com:80/html/battle_of_carbisdale.htm to http://www.scotwars.com/html/battle_of_carbisdale.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. AtticTapestry (talk) 14:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]