Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research 99/397

THE BATTLE OF CHALGROVE , 1643

151

IV

Clarendon’s actual account of the Civil War, both militarily and politically, is still to be properly accessed and understood. Too many historians and popular writers still tend to believe that, as he was a witness to many events, he could not be wrong. That in a way is true, but Laurence Hyde’s re-writing of his father’s words has been apparent for a long time. Study of events surrounding the battle of Chalgrove and John Hampden has been bedevilled by the assumption that the most readily available edition of a classic and iconic narrative must be correct. The analysis above is further evidence that, valuable as it is, Clarendon’s published history must always be treated with caution. A comprehensive transcription and publication of the thousands of documents in the Clarendon State Papers would be a massive task but one surely worth undertaking if his true historical legacy as an eyewitness (albeit partisan) to events is to be appreciated. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author expresses his thanks for the courtesy and kind permission for allowing consultation and /or quotation from archives in the possession and/or copyright of the Bodleian Library, the Trustees of the British Library and the National Army Museum. Thanks are also due to Professor Ian Beckett and Andrew Cormack for their advice and guidance.