Talk:Battle of Reading (1688)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Reading (1688) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 9, 2018 and December 9, 2023.

Military history: British / Dutch / European / Early Modern Start‑class

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

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	Dutch military history task force
	European military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I have always known this battle as the 'Battle of Broad Street'. Is this just a local thing? Can anyone provide any references to it as the 'Battle of Reading'? Verica Atrebatum 16:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further research indicates that the 'Reading Skirmish' is the most commonly used term. If there are no objections, I shall move the article there. Verica Atrebatum 20:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Losers

600 lost to 250? That sounds embarrassingly impossible. Surely, the soldiers may have been split up, or perhaps the 250 were armed with flintlock firearms and the Irish weren't? At Boyne they had to deal with old fashioned matchlock muskets.Tourskin 02:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royalists

The article uses the term "Royalists". I'm sure whoever wrote this has a .. particular .. point of view about which side he/she was referring to, but this is 1688, not the 1640s or the 1920s. Both sides were royalists. Mk270 (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Reading (1688). 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/20130726165906/http://www.hungerfordvirtualmuseum.co.uk/Events/William_of_Orange_at_The_Bear/william_of_orange_at_the_bear.html to http://www.hungerfordvirtualmuseum.co.uk/Events/William_of_Orange_at_The_Bear/william_of_orange_at_the_bear.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of Defoe's account

I removed this from the article, as it appears to be an analysis of Defoe's account of the battle, and seeing as how it's not cited to any source, it's possibly original research. —howcheng {chat} 00:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In Defoe's account, the Irish dragoons are portrayed as wild and violent men who would have pillaged Reading and murdered its people if they had not been scattered. He then goes on to describe how, after the battle, they regrouped and made their way towards London, again threatening to burn the towns and kill the inhabitants in their way. Rumours of the atrocities that the Irish soldiers would commit, or indeed already had committed, preceded them, although these were clearly exaggerated and it seems as if the men were largely dispersed after meeting – and declining to fight – another force, this time loyal to James, at Colnbrook. Writing more than 30 years after the events he describes, Defoe paints a picture of a terror spread by the threat of the Irish dragoons far in excess of any acts they actually carried out.