"Naseby TV programme Channel 5 not quite a total train wreck" Topic

Anyone else watch "Britains Lost Battlefields" in 5 Select this Tuesday?

People will say it's a gateway programme to get people interested in the subject, but that's no excuse for the errors in the programme. Thankfully the two main talking heads on the campaign and battle, Mike Ingram and Phil Steele know what they're talking about and provided some worthwhile summaries and explanation.

Mike's take on the battle, including a new perspective on the attack on the Royalist rear(!) is in the Northamptonshire Battlefields Society's book on battles in the county. Details can be found on the Facebook page:https://www.facebook.com/groups/Northampton1460/. There's also a good review here: link which I beleive was orginally in Wargames Illustrated.

I have long ago given up on watching TV "History" or at least expecting anything more than either the most superficial explanation using lazy old accepted stories or sensationalised wacky fairy tales.

Graham
Cumbria

It was actually pretty good. Good to finally here on the telly box that Fairfax was in charge of the NMA rather than Cromwell. Also the use of 'First Civil War' was a breath of fresh air.
Judging by the hits on the Naseby posts on my blog since it was shown, it has sparked some interest. Which is to be commended

Can't agree it was "pretty good". Charles I was not in favour of Roman Catholicism, Puritainism wasn't a new idea, the battlefield was not shrouded in fog at 10am, Okey's men described as "a Dragoon of Light Horse", Cromwell's cavalry did not need to cross hedges, the matchlock wasn't on it's way out. I note there was no script writer credited at the end.

As you say, the only upside is that it might provoke some interest.

My "pretty good" was of course relative. For a modern TV history programme it was so much better than many other recent offerings. Yes, it had a number of faults, but overall if you knew nothing about Naseby it was a fairly decent opener.

It was an interesting process. Mike and I were the 'historians', the talking heads – but neither of us had any input to the script (and neither of us saw a script … so we had no idea how the bits in the middle would go).

Unsurprisingly perhaps, re the story of the battle, I agree with what Mike said early on and my bit explaning the end of the battle ('yes, he was good … we need more of him on the telly' ), but would have rewritten all the narrative in the middle.

I've learnt a lot from Peter Burton over my years at Naseby but I'm not convinced that Okey was driven back into an ideal position from which to disrupt Maurice's advance (actually, I know what he's getting at but I think there is a smoother explanation).

Rob's bit of narrative seemed to suggest that the New Model infantry attacked. I think this is a misreading of them stepping forward on the flat crest before the Royalists charge.

And there are plenty of better maps than the ones they conjured out of nowehere (which weren't accurate) especially the one that showed a breakthrough on the mid-left (which if it showed anything 'real', was Hardress Waller being broken by Royalist infantry) while the narrative spoke of Rupert's cavalry winning and pursuing …

As KYPD38 says, it was better than a lot of the stuff you get (and it didn't have actors speaking made up drivel to tell the ordinary soldier's story, which is one of my pet hates*) – but it didn't come close to putting me and the other battlefield guides out of a job.

Hopefully when the lockdown is over, inspired by the show, people will be queueing up to come on our next battlefield visit.

As Treb notes, the thick fog thing is curious (and I think it comes from Wikipedia) … a number of descriptions include this detail and I am currently doing some work on the background. By and large visibility was good on the morning of battle. Mist or no mist, the armies lost sight of each other before the Royalist attack went in because the NMA dropped back to the middle of the flat topped ridge, and the Royalists advanced into the valley in front it, breaking line of sight until they came over the crest.

I thought the SK at Sulby were good, although the stuff about flintlocks has only a passing relevance to the battle. But it gave them all something to talk about.

Phil
Naseby.com
ECW Battles

*not that I have anything against the ordinary soldier's story – just against fake history: especially with the Civil War, there's usually plenty of memoir and testimony to go with (it's hardly ever necessary to make stuff up – but you wouldn't know that if you hadn't done the research and had just gone staright into fakery RANT OVER)

We are all seeing the programme from the viewpoint of people who possess more than average knowledge of military history – not, I suspect the 'target' audience.

I just wonder how intelligible much of it would have been to anyone else? What impression would they have gained of how ECW troops fought and of the battle itself? Why on earth did they have several dragoons, but one pikeman, when several could have demonstrated push of pike and preparing to receive horse more effectively?

Still, better than nothing.

Why on earth did they have several dragoons, but one pikeman, when several could have demonstrated push of pike and preparing to receive horse more effectively?

In part it was because they gave very little notice and filmed unpaid volunteers on a weekday in January (so, to an extent, you get whoever is available) …

But they were also interested in dragoons and muskets and the difference gunpowder made to the battlefield. Hence the earlier sequence filmed at the Gunpowder Mills.

The frustrating thing for historians and history buffs is that getting things right doesn't in any way spoil the appeal of the same basic programme in which you get things wrong.

Phil

Naseby was my first big battle reenactment, in 1988 with Pickering's regiment, in which,if I remember correctly, one of the featured reenactors was an officer.
I thought the program was ok, quite enjoyed it actually; not exceptional and I don't remember reading about any fog or mist, but i wouldn't knock it. The historians seemed to know what they were talking about!