English Civil War Formations and Tactics

Introduction

As what one might term a veteran re-enactor with over twenty-two years in the hobby, I have become very familiar with the debate on the level of accuracy/inaccuracy in the various elements portrayed by participants on the field. I do not intend here to enter into this debate, rather, the object of this piece is to stimulate debate on the. one area where, I would suggest, few compremises to safety, expense, etc., need detract from the accurate portrayal for the ECW period, that is, the giving of fire by a block of musketeers. I shall attempt to analyse the formations used and the methods practised in giving fire with particular reference to the contemporary drift manuals before, during and after the war.

Apart from not loading with actual ball, there seems little excuse for infantry musket blocks and dragoons not to accurately reproduce the giving of fire on the field. This obviously leads onto the question of what was the appropriate drill for such used by the musketeer/dragoon of the English Civil War? Going by the various methods displayed by the different reenactment formations there appears to be four:

1) Skirmishing.

2) By rank which then wheel to the rear.

3) By introduction/extroduction.

4).By doubling the ranks and firing by salvee.

Now while all four methods are represented, along with many others, in the various contemporary drill manuals, I would suggest that two questions must be asked.

1). Are the manoeuvers carried out on the field in accordance to the respective drill manual being used by the re-enactment group?

2). Is the method displayed actualy one which was used in English Civil War combat actions?

With regard to the first question, of the four methods of giving fire generaly represented by re-enactment formations, I would suggest that the second, third and fourth are generaly correctly rendered by the respective contemporary drill manual in use. I would firstly suggest though that a major question mark must hang-over the first method, skirmishing, as portrayed as to accuracy. Secondly, I must question the actual historical use of  introduction/extroduction as relevant to the ECW period

Skirmishing

Although numerous contemporary references in accounts of actions and memoirs to ‘skirmishing’ exist for the period, there is very limited detail in the various drill manuals as to how it ought to be performed. The practice of sending out ‘loose shot’ as the Elizabethan’s termed it, ie. troops in no formation, was a concept that had been going out of use at the turn of the Seventeenth century, although some early manuals do still refer to it, describing it as being ‘disbanded’ soldiers or ‘a la disbandada’. By 1616 a far more formal method was being developed which the following references illustrate. Firstly, in ‘The Exercise of the English in the service of the high and mighty Lords, the Lords the Estates of the United Provinces in the Low Countries’ printed as an appendix to John Bingham’s ‘The Tactiks of Aelian’ published 1616: ‘In advancing towards an Enemy, when they doe not skirmish loose and disbanded, they must give fire by Rankes after this manner.

Two Rankes must alwaies make ready together, and advance ten paces forward before the body, at which distance, a Sergeant (or when the body is great some other officer) must stand, to whom the Musquettiers are to come up before they present, and, give fire, first the first ranke. And when the first gives fire, the second Ranke keepe their Musquets close to their Rests, and their pannes garded, and assoone, as the first are fallen away, the second presently present, and give fire, and fall after them.” (I am indebted to Keith Roberts for this quote and the details of Elizabethan practice).

The English copied the Dutch at this period in just about all military matters and this formal method of skirmishing was no exception. It was copied by the English Privy Council for the manual issued in 1623 for training the reformed English Militia – the ‘Exact Militia’ and it was continued in the 1638 manual, which while not a copy of the 1623 manual did, in its firing systems, continue the same trend of ideas. In the 1638 government issued Trained Band manual ‘Directions for Musters’ (quoted page 28 in Stuart Reid, ‘Gunpowder Triumphant’ 1987) it states:

‘Concerning SKIRMISH (for which they are now in fitting distance) there be divers and sundrie Forms, both against HORSE and FOOT: Usually the fight is begun by drawing out some FILES disbanded; or else by 2 RANKS advancing 10 paces before the body, which take ready together: a SERGEANT (or some other Officer) there stands, to whom these 2 first RANKS come up; then PRESENT, and give FIRE, first the first RANK then the second; so fall off into the RERE, into their own FILES. So soon as the two first RANKS advance forwards, the two next RANKS must MAKE READY; then advance forward 10 paces, and do as the former two RANKS; so all successively.’

Finally we see the immediate pre-war stage of development in the classic works of Robert Ward, ‘Anima-dversions of Warre’ (published 1639) and William Barriffe, ‘Militarie Discipline or the Young Artillery-Man’ (various editions from 1635 to 1661). They are as one on the subject given Ward’s comment at the begining of his section on giving fire, page 259:

‘And first to begin with the firing in Front, both advancing and standing. I will follow Master Barrifes directions, who hath excellently well described them, both by discourse and figure.’

Indeed, the two respective sections are identical, Ward, pages 259-261, reproducing Barriffe’s pages 79-83 in ‘The Young Artillery-Man’ in every detail. Taking the later then as our guide; in Barriffe, under the heading ‘Of drawing the Files again into a Body, and preparing them for skirmish’, having formed the body of pike and musket in classic Dutch formation with a central body of pike flanked by wings of musketeers and stressed that orders be conveyed by drum beat; it states, pages 79-80:

‘If the Captain sends out loose files or ranks to skirmish before the front, the Ensigne continues standing at the head of the Pikes, his colours flying.’

Now the first two methods of giving fire, ‘Of Firing by forlorne Files’ and ‘Of Firing by two ranks, ten paces advanced before the Front’ pages 80-83, both offer the formal method of seventeenth centry skirmishing an officer was expected to follow, placing individual files and ranks ten to twenty paces before the main body. Now it ought to be stressed that this is not skirmishing as in the manner of the late eighteen th/nineteenth century’s but the formal Dutch drill method of engaging the enemy at a distance.

At the foot of page 83 in Barriffe the note to these sections reads:

‘These Motions are to be performed …. and foot together, by every one that advanceth ground to give fire, without excersing any directions in time of Skirmish.’

Needless to say, as the reader will note, the various motions described above follow a conceptual line of development from the turn of the seventeenth century to the outbreak of the English Civil War. Now I would humbly. suggest that the loose, open order so often observable on the English Civil War re-enactment field is inspired more by the skirmish tactics of the American Civil War rather than that of the English. Now if there is a contemporary mid-seventeenth centry source for loose, open order skirmishing drill by musketeers and dragoons I would welcome the reference. Failing this may I suggest that the more formal formations are accurate in regards to ECW events being re-enacted.

Pre-War

Taking Hexham, Ward and Barriffe as our three examples of pre-Civil War manuals, while they have a wide variety of formations to be adopted to deliver fire including the ones outlined above, having given fire in each formation, there are only three ways of bringing-up the next loaded rank; by wheeling off to the rear, by introduction and by extraduction. The question to ask in respect of the various formations offered and the methods of bringing-up new ranks is, which, if any, were actualy practiced on the field of battle in the ECW?

First taking Henry Hexham’s ‘The Principles of the Art Militairie’ published 1637; one sees on pages 49-51, unsurprisingly, the classic Dutch method of forming a musket block, it being some ten ranks deep. The two wings of musket being formed either side of the pike block, Hexham illustrates the one basic mode to give fire, the front rank gives fire and then wheels to the rear to make ready whilst the second rank gives fire in turn and so on.

Next, we might take Ward and Barriffe together given Ward’s comment at the begining of his section on giving fire quoted above. Following the first two methods, ‘Of Firing by forlorne Files’ and ‘Of Firing by two ranks, ten paces advanced before the Front’ given above in the section on skirmishing, the next method of delivering fire recounted in Ward and Barriffe may be termed the classic method, namely ‘Of Firing by two ranks… even with the Front’, starting page 80 in Barriffe and 261 in Ward. Here the musket blocks are drawn up either side of the pike block. The front rank gives fire and wheels to the rear followed immediately by the second rank the remainder of the block then steps forward to file the vacant space. The new two front ranks give fire and wheel to the rear and so on. As described at the foot of page 83 in Barriffe:

‘Now the pikes being advanced, and the ranks closed forward to their due distance of order, the musquettiers are to present, even with the front, every rank successively moving for-wards, until they come to be even in rank with the first rank of Pikes, there to give fire, and to wheel-off to the right and left, trooping file-wise, down close to their own divisions: and taking their places in the Reere …. The first rank of musquettiers having fired and wheeled away, the next ranks are to move forwards at three motions into their places, and there to give fire after the same manner, wheeling away again, and placing themselves according to former directions, every RANKE still making good their leaders ground. In this sort the battell may be continued, until they have fired once, twice, or oftner over:’

Now this is as described in Hexham with little variation. After this comes a number of variations on the different types of formations in which fire can be delivered (but this article is not primaraley on formations).

Then we have ‘Of giving fire, advancing, by way of Introduction…’ , pages 87-88 in Barriffe and 263 in Ward. Now this method of delivering fire requires the musket blocks to be deployed in open order so as to permit the ranks to pass down to the rear. Now this is true also for extroduction and Barriffe’s comment on the method is most revealing on page 87:

‘I will not dispute how usefull it is; but sure I am, it is over-ballanced with danger. As for such whom I have seen to practise it, they have rather used it for variety, in a welexperienced Company, than for any known excellency it hath in it self But if these lines happen to be over-lookt by any, that preserves a better opinion of this Firing by Introduction than I doe, I shall be willing to leave them to their own liking;’.

Ward also expresses reservations on p. 263: ‘By Introduction …. this forme of giving fire, by way of Introduction, it being a kinde of advancing against the Enemie and of gayning ground, although not used (in these our Moderne warres) but in way of exercise.’

There seems little question as to Barriffe and Ward’s feeling as to the practical method of giving fire by an average musket block, it is the classic Dutch method as represented by Hexham of the front rank giving fire and wheeling to the rear while those behind step up to give fire in their turn. Hexham and Ward both form their musket blocks in the traditional ten deep blocks of the Dutch school while Barriffe forms his blocks at eight deep thereby demonstrating that Swedish practice had as yet to make itself felt. Barriffe does though make reference at the very end of The Young Artilleryman in Chapter CXX, pages 171-173 to the Swedish practice of ‘squadrons’ and ‘Brigades’ so that officers ‘may exercise their bodies with more variety’. Barriffe then quotes from Colonel Robert Munro’s book ‘Monro his Expeditions and Observations’. Classic if outdated Swedish Brigades are nicely illustrated on these three pages. Hence to conclude this part one may quote Ward as the last significant pre-war writer as to the two key methods, for having on page 262 placed the musket in two wings flanking the pike in a ten deep formation:

‘There are two principle ways of giving fire belonging to this forme, namely first the Muskeeters may give fire in the Front, and so wheele off by division, or if the Commander pleaseth, they may wheel all off to the right, placing themselves in the Reere of their owne division and Files of shot just before the Front of the Pikes. The next Rankes are immediatly to move forwards into their Leaders ground, and are likewise to give fire and wheel off placing themselves after the maner of the former, the rest of the ranks of Musketeers performing the like, until they have all given fire’…

Ward, having given his reservations about introduction quoted above, goes on, on page 263 to:

‘By Introduction …. It is to be performed two ways. The first, when the motion is begun by the second Ranke from the Front. The other when it is begun by the bringers up; wherefore observe before the firing begin, you must open your Files of Musketeers, to their open order, so that the shot may passe between the intervalls of each File to give in the Front.’

The conclusion then to the pre-war drill’s as to the favoured method of a stationary musket block giving fire is the classic Dutch one of the two front ranks giving fire and wheeling to the rear. For gaining ground or giving ground, various forms of introduction and extroduction respectively are suggested, although Barriffe stresses the need of well drilled troops for these and Ward suggests it is only for exercise. The reason, I would suggest, that introduction and extroduction were not favoured was, apart from being a sixteenth century method used by the massed ranks of the Spanish tercio’s, was that it required the musket block to deploy to open order which easily led to a loss of cohesion and order in all but the best drilled troops in the stress of action.

Essentially, introduction was one of several experimental firing systems in use at the close of the Sixteenth century which remained a popular style in manuals of the early Seventeenth but there is no evidence that it was ever used in action during the ECW. Whereas, each rank wheeling in turn to the rear maintained a close order, hence greater cohesion in poorer drilled troops (often the norm in ECW societies as well as the period) and an ability to manoeuver more rapidly without loosing vital cohesion.

Wartime

What then of recommended drills written during and after the war based, one assumes, on wartime experience?

The two war time drill’s I would suggest that offer most as to detail are Richard Elton’s ‘The Compleat Body of the Art Military’ published in 1650 and George Monck’s ‘Observations upon Military and Political Affairs’ (although largely written in 1644, it was not published until 1671). Now Elton’s work deals with musket blocks giving fire from page 95 onwards. While many formations are described the respective blocks of musketeers are drawn-up six deep, Elton stating that ‘..the depth of our Files being always six deep in the Armies of England, Scotland and Ireland’ and in all the front rank having given fire they wheel to the rear. Essentialy Elton follows the prewar drills of Hexham, Ward and Barriffe, although the basic Dutch formation is reduced in depth to the Swedish six ranks. This similarity being unsurprising given the London based background Ward, Barriffe and Elton shared wrought in the Artillery Garden and on the ECW battlefield.

Monck is somewhat different in that while he draws up his infantry in a formation basically identical to the above, he goes on to deploy and discharge his musketeers in a compleatly different manner. Now Monck was essentialy a royalist with his experience based in Ireland without the influence of the Artillery Ground Parliamentarians. Monck covers the various situations and respective formations for deploying musketers between page 42 (chapter XIII and page 77 (chapter XVI) and demonstrates his interest in the new Swedish salvee system. Having initialy dealt with combinations of foot and horse between pages 51 and 53 which display the foot in Swedish squadron formation, Monck comes to the deployment and firing of infantry on its own between pages 66-73. Now, as with Hexham, Barriffe and Ward, Monck places a wing of musketeers each side of the pike block, each wing being twelve men across and six deep. But when this classic formation comes to engage the enemy, he places the musket in a three deep line across the front of the pike block, He does this by moving the two wings forward of the central pike block and then deploying the rear three rank divisions to the centre to create a single three deep line. To give fire the first rank kneels, the second stands and both fire together. Then the second rank kneels so that the third rank can give fire. If the enemy is about to close then Monck stresses that all three- ranks can fire in a single salvee and then fall on with clubbed muskets and swords. Monck then, on page 71, goes on to say:

‘Or if you approve not of the way of Musketeers firing, as is here set down, you may subdivide them after the old manner, and so command them to give fire.’

Now back on pages 51-53, the musket when deployed with horse also adopted a three deep line to deliver fire, the three ranks to either advance having given fire or re-load as the situation demanded. There is no reference what-so-ever to ranks wheeling to the rear, introduction or extroduction other than his contemptous reference to ‘the old manner’, essentialy Monck’s recommended method is a three deep line which loads and gives fire in situe, all one would need is the addition of platoon fire to produce the classic eighteenth century method of giving fire!!!

Post-War

This now finally brings us to the post war writings and for this I would suggest a key section from Sir James Turner’s ‘Pallas Armata: Essays on the Greek, Roman and Modern Art of War’, written in 1671 and published 1683, pages 237-238 suggests the method actualy used on the battlefield by both musket and dragoons:

‘Since then a Dragoon when he alights, and a musqueteer are all one, I have forborn hitherto to speak of the several ways how the ranks of musqueteers fire, having reserv’d it to this as a proper place. Take them then, thus: If the service with the enemy be in the Van, as mostly it is, ranks may (after they have fired) fall off two several ways: First, the rank which hath fired, divides it self into two, and half goes to the right hand, and the other half to the left, and then they fall down to the reer, and so of Leaders become Bringers-up, till another rank comes behind them. But I would have this manner of falling off banisht out of all armies, for in a great Body it breeds confusion, and though in drilling it may leisurely be done without any considerable disorder, yet in service with an enemy, where men are falling, it procures a pitiful Embarras, and though it did not, yet it ought to give way to a more easie way of falling off, which is the second way I promised to tell you of, and it is that I spoke of, of failing down by the intervals of ground, that is between files, and this I would have constantly done by turning to the left-hand after they have fired, because after that Musqueteers recover their Matches, and cast about their Musquets to the left-side, that they may charge again, which they are a doing, while they fall off to the reer. But there is a third way for Musqueteers to do service better than by any of these two, and that it not to fall off at all, but for every rank to stand still, after it hath given fire, and make ready again standing, the second advancing immediately before the first, and that having fired likewise, the third advanceth before it, and so all the rest do, till all have fired, and then the first rank begins again. It is not possible that by this way of giving fire, there can be the least confusion, or any thing like it, if Officers be but half men; there is another way of firing sometimes practised, that is by three ranks together, the first kneeling, the second stooping, and the third standing, these having fired, the other three ranks march thorough the first three, and in the same postures fire likewise.

But here I shall desire it to be granted to me that which indeed is undeniable, that when the last three ranks have fired, the first three cannot be ready to fire the second time. Next, firing by three ranks at a time, should not be practised, but when either the business seems to be desperate, or that the Bodies are so near, that the Pikemen are almost come to push of Pike, and then no other use can be made of the Musquet but of the Butt-end of it. I say then that this manner of six ranks to fire at two several times it not at all to be used; for if it come to extremity, it will be more proper to make them all fire at once, for thereby you pour as much Lead in your enemies bosom at one time as yo do the other way at two several times, and thereby you do them more mischief, you quail, daunt, and astonish them three times more, for one long and continuated crack of Thunder is more terrible and dreadful to mortals than ten interrupted and several ones, though all and every one of the ten be as loud as the long one.

But that I seem not to pass my word to you for this, be pleased to take the authority of Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden, who practised it at the Battle of Leipzick, where after he had fought long, and that the Saxon Army on his left-hand was beaten by the Imperialists, he caused the Musqueteers of some of his Brigades to fire all at once by kneeling, stooping, and standing, which producet effects conform to his desire. If you ask me how six ranks can fire all at one time, and level their Musquets right? I shall tell you the foremost three ranks must first be doubled by half files, and then your Body consists but of three ranks, and the posture of the first is kneeling, of the second stooping, and of the third standing, and then you may command them all to fire.’

Turner then concludes with some specific observations on dragoons;

‘If you command your ranks (after they have fired) to fall to the reer any of the two ways already spoken of, though you take never so good heed, you shall lose ground, besides that it hath the show of a retreat, but by making the ranks successively go before those which have fired, you advance still, and gain ground. In this order should Dragoons fight in open field, when they are mixed with Horse, in this order should they fire and advance when they are to defend a Pass, a Bridg, or a Strait, they must then after firing fall off to the reer, by marching thorough the Intervals of their several files, because it may be supposed they have no ground whereon they can advance.’

Contemporary Battlefield Accounts

Having analysed what was recommended in the various drills based upon pre and post wartime experience which most officers in the ECW would have had to rely upon when preparing their troops for battle I will end by drawring the readers attention to a number of quotes. Two from the Thirty Years War and one on Naseby where the Royalist musketeers actions both compair with the first quote and reflect Monck and especialy Turner’ writings.

The first is from an English officer at the Battle of Leipsic who was second in command of Lumsden’s regiment of Scots, quoted pages 104-105 in C.H. Firth’s ‘Cromwell’s Army’:

‘…I suffered not my muskettiers to give their volleyes till I came within Pistoll shot of the enemy; at which time I gave order to the first three first rancks to discharge at once; and after them the other three; which done we fell pell mell into their rancks, knocking them down with the stock of the musket and our swords.’

The second quote is from Sir Edward Walker’s account of Naseby (quoted page 40 in ‘Gunpowder Triumphant):

‘The Foot on either side hardly saw each other until they were with Carbine shot, and so made only one volley; ours falling in with Sword and butt end of the Musquet did nitable execution;’ Now the Battle of Leipsig was in 1631 and Naseby in 1645; it would seem logical to assume that given the considerable number of professional officers who had served in the Swedish service who fought in the ECW that the method described was the norm.It might also be noted that Turner’s description of the method used at Leipsig exactly mirror’s that of the English officers account!

Finally compare this to the following quote from page 124, vol.i, ‘The Swedish Intelligencer’ given on page 97 in Firth’s ‘Cromwell’s Army’, of the Scots Briagde at Leipsig in 1631:

‘The Scots ordering themselves in several small battagliaes, about 6 or 700 in a body, presently now double their rankes, making their files then but 3 deepe, the discipline of the King of Sweden beeng neuer to march aboue 6 deepe. This done, the formost ranke failing on their knees; the second stooping forward; and the third ranke standing right up, and all giuing fire together; they powred so much lead at one instant in amongst the enemies hors; that their ranckes were much broken with it.’

Conclusion

Some broad conclusions may be reached taking the evidence of the various drill books and battlefield accounts.

1). All pre-war English systems and Elton’s post-war work is firmly based on the Dutch although the German and Swedish shallower formations are making an impact. Monck is not contemptuous of the old Dutch system but sees advantages in the new Swedish salvees and it was certainly used by the royalists later in the war.

2). In all drills the enphasis is on maintaining a close, cohesive order. If the block was to advance or retire, it simply shouldered its muskets and marched, introduction or extroduction would have effectively complicated this.

3). The pre-war drills are as one in focusing on ranks who, having given fire, wheel in turn to the rear, introduction and extroduction being dismissed to the parade ground as antiquated and over complex. This applied also to skirmishing formations. The depth of the block reduces to six ranks as the influence of Swedish doctrines makes itself felt.

4). From Monck, supported by Turner and contemporary battlefield accounts we find, for close action, a three deep line giving fire in a single slavee. The three rank firing system is formed by doubling the ranks from six ranks deep to three ranks deep and firing in a single salvee. The musketeers reloading in situe or falling on with clubbed muskets and sword.

5). Although the account of Leipzig from the Swedish Intelligencer demonstrates the fire being delivered by six ranks, the first three firing together in a single salvee, then the next three, in Turner the recommendation is similar to Monck, ie when in close action (which most battle re-enactment is effectively simulating) you double your ranks from six to three deep, fire by salvee and then fall on with butt of musket. ‘..six ranks to fire at two several times is not at all to be used.’

In conclusion to this study it is illustrative to compair the career’s of the writers I have focused upon in understanding the broadly common background to their respective writings. As will be obvious, non were armchair theorists and most had considerable pre-1642 battlefield experience.

Henry Hexham was a renowned vetran of Dutch service who had held commissioned rank in Maurice of Nassau’s army after many years of active service in their English regiments, particularly Colonel George Goring’s. In England in the 1630’s he became one of the most respected sources for reference on the Dutch practice’s.

Colonel William Barriffe had seen no active service prior to the ECW yet his abilities in the fashionable military arts demonstrated in the elaborate quasi-military displays of the Society of the Artillery Garden saw him recognized as a leading exponent of the English style of infantry drill and training based firmly on the Dutch practice. A Lieutenant in the Trained Bands of the City Barriffe’s prewar reputation saw him appointed at the outbreak of war to the prestigious rank of Sergeant-Major in Colonel John Hampden’s Regiment of Foot. Sadly, he died in 1643.

Unfortunately there seems to be little known about Robert Ward other than that he was a County Militia officer who may have practiced with members of the Society of the Artillery Garden (although he was definitely not a member) prior to the ECW and was very familiar with Barriffe’s work, although there is no evidence that he personally knew Barriffe.

Lieutanent-Colonel Richard Elton had been a member of the Military Company of Westminster at the start of the ECW with experience in the Parliamentary Army and friends in the New Model Army. By 1646 he was a Sergeant-Major in the City of London Auiliaries. Elton and Barriffe were contemporaries and both members of rival volunteer military groups-the Society of the Artillery Garden and the Military Company. Even if he had not personaly known Barriffe his work certainly strongly reflects Barriffe’s work all be it increasingly influenced by Swedish concepts.

George Monck was a professional soldier who had first seen service in the abortive Cadiz expedition followed by considerable active service in the English regiments with Dutch forces fighting against Spain from 1629-38. He then saw a number of years active service in Ireland prior to his return to England in 1644 and capture. His writings represent Dutch practice as it was by the late 1630’s (excluding though the ten deep block still used by the Dutch) with the addition of the shallower formations of only six ranks, a development not soley limited to the Swedish service. Sir James Turner had first seen active service in the Swedish Army in 1632 as part of Lumsdaine’s Regiment. He remained in Swedish service until 1639/40 making him something of an expert in that service.

For example, in commenting about the short life of the Swedish Brigade, he saw it used ‘..for one year after the King’s death; but after that time, I saw it wear out when defensive arms first, and then pikes came to be neglected…’ quoted page 14 in Richard Brzezinski’s ‘The Army of Gustavus Adolphus’. He was to subsequently see active service in the Scottish army sent to Ulster in 1642 and the Scottish Army that entered England in 1648.

A final individual who linked the predominately parliamentarian manual writers who had pre-war experience in the London based military societies such as Barriffe and Elton with the royalist’s of the ECW is Henry Tillier. He was a professional soldier who had served at Cadiz, the Isle of Rhe and in the Low Countries, and who, prior to the ECW, was a well known I expert’ of the Military Garden. During the ECW he served as a royalist colonel and a major-general to Prince Rupert

Autore: Philipp J. C. Elliot-Wright     

Fonte: English Civil War Times