Showing posts with label ECW. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ECW. Show all posts

Thursday, October 22, 2015

Making Provision for Those That Shall Be Maimed In This Present War - Medical Care in the English Civil War

by MJ Logue

After the first battle of the English Civil War at Edgehill on 23rd October 1642, the people of Warwickshire found themselves with an estimated butcher’s bill of between one and two thousand men injured in the fight.

Camp-followers and soldiers’ wives who followed the Army were able to care for their injured menfolk, but a casualty list of such magnitude was beyond either their capability or their resources. Most sword-cuts were not able to penetrate the sleeve of a buff-coat – but not every soldier owned a buff-coat. A musket-ball was an ounce of lead, and would break thinner bones, such as ribs; thicker bones, such as limbs, tended to be shattered on impact. Not, as you can imagine, the sort of injury with which the ordinary woman – or, indeed, the ordinary medic – would be greatly familiar with from a civilian existence!

It is not known whether either Army’s medics operated a triage system. What is known, however, is that after Edgehill as many casualties as possible were removed to a more stable environment to provide the best care. In the Army of Parliament both Lord Brooke and the Earl of Essex are documented as having provided funds for the ongoing care of their casualties by local people: a receipt presented by Katherine Hobson of Warwick, after the battle, shows that she received £25 for the care of around 150 men. (Kington being Kineton, ie Edgehill)

These are to certifie to all those whom these may any wayes concerne
That I Katherine Hobson of Warwicke dureing the time of wars imployed by the Lord Brooke in the Attendinge & dressing of the wounded soldiers that came from Kington battel (wh[i]ch said Souldiers were in number aboute Seaven score & the said battell was in The year of our Lorde God 1642) I say Rec[eive]d of Mr Richard Lacell then Bayleff of Warwicke the sume of Twenty five pounds, for the buying Of necessarys for the said Soldiers

It is not known whether the King’s troops enjoyed a similar care: the wholesale destruction of His Majesty’s always-lackadaisical administrative paperwork after the surrender at Oxford means that it is impossible to say with any certainty. It may be guessed from contemporary Royalist sources that perhaps it was not always the case; it was conceded by many that the Parliamentarian medical services were far superior to the King’s, despite having men such as the physicians Thomas Sydenham (1624-1689) "the English Hippocrates”, and Richard Wiseman (1625-1686), the greatest English surgeon of his day, in the ranks. These practitioners fought in opposing camps. Sydenham was a cavalry officer for the Parliamentary forces, whereas Wiseman was an ardent Royalist. Moreover, Wiseman became a personal friend of King Charles II, just as the pre-eminent physician William Harvey (1578-1657) had been a good friend (and hunting partner) of King Charles I.

Sydenham was enrolled at Magdalen College, Oxford, at the beginning of the war, and qualified as a Bachelor of Medicine in 1648 – presumably using some of the experience and knowledge gained in active service, in his practice. Wiseman wrote a book on field surgery, Several Surgical Treatises, and was an advocate of early amputation on the field of battle as well as an expert on gunshot wounds – also, presumably, using his field experience! He was of a similar age to Sydenham, but had entered the ranks of Barber-Surgeons just before the Civil War. (One of the main differences between doctors and barber-surgeons was that doctors were academically trained, and barber-surgeons were apprenticed.)

Edgehill seems to have been significant not only for the aftercare of its soldiers but for the fortunate coincidence of cold weather conditions which saved the life of many left on the battlefield unattended. The eminent physician to Charles I, William Harvey, who was present at the battle of Edgehill reported:
... that Sir Adrian Scrope was dangerously wounded there, and left for dead amongst the dead men, stript; which happened to be the saving of his life. It was cold clear weather, and a frost that night; which staunched his bleeding, and at about midnight, or some hours after his hurte, he awaked, and was faine to draw a dead body upon him for warmth-sake.” Harvey was also familiar with the best way of raising body temperature: “I remember he kept a pretty young wench to wayte on him, which I guess he made use of for warmth-sake as King David did, and he took care of her in his Will.

On 25 October 1642, within hours of the stalemate at Edgehill, Parliament passed an Act that for the first time acknowledged the State’s responsibility to provide for the welfare of its wounded soldiers and also for the widows and orphans of those killed -"An Ordinance of both Houses, declaring their Resolutions of making provision for those that shall be maimed in this present war, who are in the service of Parliament; and for the wives and children of those that shall be slaine". Three weeks later, on 14th November with the pressure for care for the wounded rising, Parliament formed “The Committee for Sick and Maimed Soldiers” to rationalise the organisation and implementation of its aftercare arrangements.

Edgehill was significant not only as the battle which began the English Civil War, but, to a degree, the battle which began the concept of state responsibility for those hurt in its service. Diverse wounds and missing limbs often prevented returning soldiers from earning a living – these survivors seem to have been given a lump sum of £2 (in context, a colonel of horse in the New Model Army, three years later, would have received wages of a pound a week: £2 was a hefty lump sum, but not enough to retire on!) whilst a regular pension was agreed on. Significantly, widows and dependents of soldiers were also allowed to enter a claim for maintenance, provided they were able to provide relevant war records. Many of these widows were also in the position of having cared for injured soldiers who were wholly unrelated to them, after battle: Hester Whyte cared for wounded Parliamentarian soldiers after Edgehill, “who continued at her house in great misery by reason of their wounds for upwards of three months. She often sat up night and day with them, and in respect of her tenderness to the Parliament’s friends, laid out her own money in supply of their wants.” (Petition to the Committee of Safety for Warwick and Coventry)

There is much, much more to be said on the matter of Parliamentarian care of its soldiery – the hospital structure, the diet of sick and hurt soldiers, the value of opportunities afforded for women to be recognised in paid employment outside the home. In 1657 four women were interviewed for the single position of ward Sister at a London soldiers’ hospital. A nursing post in one of the London soldiers’ hospitals would have attracted a wage of 5s per week, with accomodation and food provided. (Set that against the widow’s pension of 4s per week, and it’s a much less impressive deal.)

That, however, is for another day entirely. On this anniversary of the battle of Edgehill, let us raise a toast to the Committee for Sick and Maimed Soldiers: the first of its kind in England.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MJ Logue can be found lurking at uncivilwars.blogspot.co.uk, , and the first three books in her bestselling series featuring the (mis)adventures of sweary Parliamentarian cavalry officer Hollie Babbitt and his rebel rabble are available here.

Friday, October 9, 2015

The Importance of the Battle of Nantwich

by DW Bradbridge

The battle which took place on 25 January 1644 in the fields just outside the Cheshire town of Nantwich is not generally considered to have been one of the most important of the military clashes that took place during the English Civil War. To begin with, less than 300 people were killed in the battle, which took place in what was considered by many, at the time, to be very much a backwater in terms of the national picture.

However, Sir Thomas Fairfax and Sir William Brereton’s defeat of the forces controlled by John, Lord Byron, was strategically significant in that it was the first clear cut parliamentary victory in the entire conflict and, as such, prevented the Royalists from gaining ascendancy in the North of England, thereby potentially altering the course of the whole war.

In order to grasp the significance of the events which took place in and around Nantwich in December and January 1643-44, it is necessary to understand the balance of power in North-West England at the time.

By the late summer of 1643 the Royalists were as close as they would come to winning the war. Thanks to Sir Ralph Hopton in the south-west and the Marquis of Newcastle in the north, Royalist control extended over significant parts of the kingdom, and having won considerable victories at Roundway Down and Adwalton Moor, as well as having taken Bristol, hopes were again being revived of a triumphal march on London by the King. The one area outside of the south-east where Parliament was holding its own was in Cheshire and Lancashire.

Sir William Brereton
Chester itself was a Royalist stronghold, but the rest of Cheshire was in the hands of Sir William Brereton, who during the early part of the year had been victorious at the first Battle of Middlewich as well as capturing the garrison at Warrington. Despite being surrounded by Royalists in Shropshire, Wales and the Wirral, Brereton spent most of the summer of 1643 launching raids into Staffordshire, Shropshire and North Wales.

It gradually became clear that Cheshire was a strategically important location, because it sat between Hopton’s group in the south-west and Newcastle in the north. It was also a key link between the port of Liverpool and the Midlands and, therefore, the road to London.

During the Autumn of 1643, however, things began to change. Not only had the advances made by Hopton and Newcastle ground to a halt, resulting in the opportunity of capturing London being missed for the second year in succession, Parliament had finalised the Solemn League and Covenant with the Scots, who had promised an army to support Parliament’s cause in the north.

At the same time, on the other side of the Irish Sea, Ormond had arranged a one year truce with the Irish rebels, allowing him to send over reinforcements to Chester.

Lord John Byron
In late November 4,000 infantry landed at Mostyn on the Flintshire coast and proceeded to Chester. They were joined shortly afterwards by their new commander Lord Byron, who had ridden from Oxford with 1,000 cavalry. The Royalist plan was for Byron to overpower Cheshire and Lancashire, before bolstering Newcastle’s forces, allowing the Royalists to mount a defence against, and eventually defeat, the Covenanters before marching on to London.

Many have asked why Byron did not target Liverpool rather than Nantwich, and why he did not wait until Spring when he would have been fully reinforced, but it is also true that if Nantwich had fallen during the winter of 1643-44, Cheshire and most of Lancashire would have been under Royalist control, leaving Newcastle free to conduct a strong defence against the advancing Scots.

In the event, Byron, after a short rest, advanced on Nantwich, capturing the garrisons of Hawarden and Beeston on the way. He did not go unopposed, for Brereton tried to break through to come to Nantwich’s aid, but he was defeated on 26 December at the second Battle of Middlewich, leaving him to retreat into Manchester for reinforcements.

Sir Thomas Fairfax
Flushed with success, and realising he now had time on his hands, Byron mounted a full siege of Nantwich. However, a measure of the importance of Nantwich to the Parliamentarian cause can be seen by the fact that Sir Thomas Fairfax was ordered from his winter quarters in Lincolnshire to come to Brereton’s aid. He joined up with Brereton in Manchester, and, together with Lancashire Parliamentarians, they marched on Nantwich, arriving outside the village of Acton, a mile or so from their goal, on the afternoon of January 25.

There are several reasons why Byron lost the ensuing battle. Firstly he had delayed abandoning the siege until the very last minute in the hope that the town would surrender, or at least in order to minimise the opportunity for the townsfolk to restock provisions while Byron was away fighting Fairfax. This meant that Byron was forced to fight much closer to Nantwich than he really wanted to. There is evidence that his preferred location was Barbridge, a couple of miles further up the road towards Chester, which would have minimised the chance of the garrison breaking out to come to Fairfax’s aid.

Secondly, there was a great thaw the night before the battle, which resulted in the River Weaver sweeping away the temporary bridge built at Beam Heath and stranding a large part of Byron’s forces on the wrong side of the river. These men had to march six miles via the nearest bridge and barely made it onto the battlefield in time.

Thirdly, the guard placed by Byron to stop the garrison breaking out was far too small and was quickly overwhelmed, allowing the garrison to attack the rear of the Royalist centre, which had, at this point, barely engaged the enemy.

Nantwich was a disaster for Byron. Although he managed to escape back to Chester with his cavalry and his left flank, as many as 1,500 men were taken prisoner, many of whom switched sides after the battle. In addition, Byron had lost several hundred men a week previously in a failed attempt to storm the town, most prominent of which was the valiant firelock Thomas Sandford, who had famously stormed Beeston Castle with only eight colleagues a month earlier.

In the weeks following the Battle of Nantwich several minor garrisons fell, completing Brereton’s dominance in the region. The Royalists never came close to military supremacy in Cheshire again, and it quickly became clear that if Byron was not reinforced, Chester itself would end up being the subject of a siege. At a stroke the momentum in the war in the North-West had been turned on its head.

Fortunately for Chester, Prince Rupert saw the danger and was in Chester by early March, and he became the focus of parliamentary attention over the coming months as the Prince Robber cut a swathe through the north on his way to his devastating defeat on July 2, 1644 at Marston Moor.

Although Rupert’s defeat at Marston Moor was decisive and effectively ended Royalist ambitions in the North, it can be argued that the chain of events which ended in that stunning parliamentary victory was set in motion with Fairfax’s triumph in the fields of Cheshire.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DW Bradbridge lives near Nantwich in Cheshire and is the author of the Daniel Cheswis series of murder mysteries, set in Cheshire during the English Civil War. The first novel, The Winter Siege, is set against the backdrop of the Siege and Battle of Nantwich.

Amazon

His website can be found at http://www.dwbradbridge.com
He also runs a blog http://nantwichconstable.blogspot.co.uk/
Follow him on Twitter at @dwbradbridge