Help & Keys
Help - Using the map
- Use the 'Battle of Edgehill Website' button to show or hide the website's main navigation (or click any black & white circular 'X or "Close" tag' to close the website navigation)
- Use the options along the top menu to reveal battle footprints (icons), modern public footpaths, army deployments and more. (Click again to hide them, particularly if the map becomes too crowded)
- Mouse–Over battle footprint icons to reveal simple labels
- Click on the battle footprint icons and army deployment polygons to reveal more information. Click the small 'X or "Close" tag' to close, or click another icon/polygon instead
- Change the terrain of the map using the options at the top right of the map
- Use the Zoom slider, on the left, to adjust the map's scale, or double click on a location in the map to zoom in. (Switching to Satelite terrain increases the zooming scales and options)
- Use the navigation Pan controls, on the left, to move the map, or click and hold (grab) the map to move it
- Click and drag the small 'Pegman' icon (at the top of the Zoom slider) onto any road - with all viable roads highlighting in blue - and then release, to use Google's Street View. (Within the Street View mode, as well as using the obvious controls, you can also click and grab/drag the screen or view, to rotate left or right)
- Click the small 'x' (in the top right of this panel) to close this help information.
Return to Top
Battle of Edgehill Website
Show and hide the website's navigation menus. ('Reset Map & Page' will return the map and webpage to its original default state).
For a complete list of all web pages within this web site: Site Map.
Return to Top
Battle Footprint Markers
The principle feature of the website. This layer illustrates locations relating to the battle and the battlefield. Zoom out to reveal markers further afield.
(Click on the icons to reveal their information).
Return to Top
Photographs & Paths
Locations of photographs, routes of public rights of way, permissive paths and recommended views for 'Street View'.
- Click the camera icons to view photographs (or drawings) taken from, or representing, the location. (Tip: If too many icons are tightly grouped, switch to Satellite view, and zoom in).
- Please note: This website cannot accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy of the public rights of way and permissive paths, illustrated here, and/or the latest status of permissive paths. Always consult a map. Some land owners have clearly redirected some routes around crops and perimeters in a reasonable fashion - please respect these minor alterations.
- Click and drag the orange 'Pegman' icon to the 'large arrow' icons for relevant views of the battlefield. Clicking the 'large arrows' will provide additional information.
Public Rights of Way = red. Permissive Paths = pink.
Featured are the most relevant and useful footpaths which can be used in conjunction with the roads and lanes to view the battlefield. Bing maps features all public footpaths and bridleways, as well as the 'Battlefields Trail' route (when viewed at the correct scale and using the 'Ordinance Survey' view option). Street-Map.co.uk also features the public footpaths and bridleways around the battlefield (when viewed at the correct scale).
- The permissive path across Bullet Hill is funded by English Heritage & English Nature.* County Reg No: 030A/745. For further information, contact: Countryside Commission. Tel: 0121 233 9399. (Note: In high summer — July/August — parts of this path can become unpleasantly overgrown; so take a "beating" stick!).
- The permissive paths south and west of the munitions depoe (curving around the 'Oaks' plantation) form part of the Battlefields Trust 'Battlefield Trail' (Edgcote, Cropredy Bridge, Edgehill)
- The 'permissive path' highlighted along Red Road (near Little Kineton) is officially recorded on some OS mapping as
Other routes with public access. This now forms part of the Battlefield Trail. (See below).
- The permissive paths shown towards the southern area of the battlefield are provided by the Upton Estate.
- For comments, issues or problems concerning the public footpaths or bridleways, please contact: Warwickshire County Council. Tel: 01926 413427. Email: email@example.com
- Photographs taken from within the general Defence Storage & Distribution Agency (DSDA) Kineton zone were taken with permission and under supervision. You must observe signs and not trespass onto this land as you will be prosecuted.
government cuts a sign explained that this path had closed for a period of time during 2011, but it currently appears to be open and in use again (and is clearly way marked).
Note: The footpaths and bridleways north of the Oaks plantation (the large wood on 'Essex's hill') appear to have changed more than once in recent years but are reassuringly well signposted. There is however one small exception as one Battlefield Trail way–marker incorrectly points in unison with a standard footpath marker (which leads to a dead end). If walking from the Radway direction, when you reach the south western corner of the Oaks plantation or woods, simply turn right (up slope and as the Trail guides describe) skirting the wood. Cross the track lines and simply follow the metalled road, left, 'around the hill'. Furthermore, contrary to some now dated mapping (mentioned above), the footpath, trail and bridleway now extends along the open metalled lane all the way to Red Road, which provides much improved views in this important region of the battlefield. (And presumably a big 'well–done' to the Battlefields Trust & Warwickshire County Council).
Return to Top
Add Measurement Markers
Each click of this button adds a new pair of Markers - at the central position of your map - which can be used to measure distances across the battlefield. Click the button once and then click and drag the red and black marker - which will have a '0 m' label - to a new position. You can do this with both corresponding Markers. Tip: For distances over 1 kilometre, you can create several pairs; then manually reposition them to link and chain them, in order to achieve detailed distance measurements. For best results use the Satellite terrain option and zoom in on the map. To delete the Markers, simply use the 'delete' option provided in the menu.
Return to Top
Historic Terrain 1642
A rudimentary representation of the historic terrain of the 1642 battlefield, demonstrating the fundamental open field landscape utilised by the battle and made up of the combined Radway, Little Kineton and Kineton common fields.
This open, unenclosed and largely uninterrupted, area was principally made up of hay meadow (1), some ploughed arable farming (notably around the Graveground Coppice region)(2),
moore (3) and lowland heath (4) around the Kineton side and to the rear of Parliament's positions, with significant gorse growth also through their centre and right deployments (5). One or two small copses may also have been present in slightly elevated areas. Some historic enclosures have been specifically included to the north and south which may have been integral to events and referenced within contemporary accounts. A handful of enclosures, along with their adjoining parish boundary hedgerow are included within the central area. Radway village was tightly surrounded by small enclosures. (The Edgehill escarpment was not wooded at the time).
In conjunction with Foard's 2009 deployment suggestion, the 'open space' terrain appears to make keener sense of Clarendon's virtually contemporary account and description of the Parliamentarian army deploying where
the ground was narrowest.
Tip: Set the map's terrain setting to 'Map' (instead of 'Satellite') option, to reveal and highlight the Radway brook and its ditch - sometimes called Ramsey's stream - running north to south across the centre of the battlefield. This is a topographical detail also influencing events.
(This 'Historic Terrain' layer turns "off" the Radway Field 1756 layer due to it's slight planimetric inaccuracy). 1: Radway, 1756 doc & contemporary accounts. 2 & 5: Contemporary accounts & Battle Farm, 1701 doc. 3: Battle Farm, 1701 doc. 4: A tenement in 1655 from Kineton describes six acres of furze & heath (WRO L6/549).
Return to Top
Battle Farm 1701
The Battle Farm Sketch Map and survey of 1701 reveals many clues concerning how the terrain in this area may have appeared, less than 60 years earlier during the battle.
The survey made of this farm estate and its enclosed fields appears to capture a young farm in transition and is subsequently estimated to have first become established approximately during the mid second half of the 17th century. It provides detailed land usage information and unique place names, as well as improving upon the lineage and proximity to the battle of fieldnames featured in a 1733 Little Kineton enclosure document.
Published for the first time by this website, it was also first studied for Edgehill battlefield research by the battlefield terrain conjecture resource and review, which discusses its revelations in detail.
Reproduced with the kind permission of: Birmingham Libraries & Archives. Battle Farm Sketch Map. Z/2832.
Return to Top
Radway Field 1756
George Salmons' pre–enclosure survey of 1756: This document which came into the possession of the Warwickshire County Record Office in 1975 features important details concerning water courses, hedgerows and boundaries when understanding how the terrain may have appeared in 1642. Published here for the first time in full with the kind permission of the record office.
In addition to its obvious insights this document also appears to accurately pinpoint, for the first time, some of the battle related details depicted by Henry Beighton in his own 1728 map.
Reproduced with the kind permission of: Warwickshire County Record Office. Radway pre-enclosure map. G.Salmon. CR1596/197.
(Turns "off" the 'Historic Terrain 1642' layer, due to slight planimetric inaccuracy of the 1756 map). Click upon the map for further information.
Return to Top
In 1947 the RAF photographed the entire county of Warwickshire. These aerial photographs of the battlefield - here seamlessly merged and published for the first time - capture the terrain possibly prior to intensive ploughing and shortly after the construction of two Royal Ordnance Department depots. In areas they capture the last visual details of some important field enclosures while also helping to explain the results of subsequent archaeological surveys. (Click upon the 1947 aerial photograph for further details).
Return to Top
The official battlefield boundary as recorded in English Heritage's Register of Historic Battlefields.
While battlefields still have no legal protection the creation of the Battlefield Register educates and encourages planners to consider the importance of a designated battlefield before any development can take place. Edgehill is the largest site on the register and was designated in June 1995.
Edgehill provides the most secure example [of registered battlefield boundaries] as it has the most comprehensive data set for any English battlefield. Here, based on the new analysis [including 2004/2007 archaeological survey], it would appear that the Registered boundary includes all the core cavalry and infantry action and much of both royalist and parliamentarian rout, the latter including various subsidiary actions. However, only part of the attack on the parliamentarian baggage train in Little Kineton has been included within the boundary. […] On the northern edge of the battlefield the probable extent of the royalist dragoon action, taking the hedgerows at the beginning of the battle to facilitate Rupert's attack, may be partly excluded, although, again, incomplete survey makes it impossible at present to determine the extent. On the south the boundary seems likely to take in all the action on that flank, while on the southeast it is likely to include most of the royalist infantry rout as well as the meadow area where their army initially assembled. Uncertainties over the exact definition of boundaries, even in such a well studied battle as this, are highlighted by the recent find of isolated case shot, made further to the southeast on the lower slopes of Edgehill, suggesting close-quarter action involving artillery beyond the Register and survey boundaries.
Boundary illustrations are available online and are published in the English Heritage publication 'British Battles' (Ken and Denise Guest, 1996).
The battlefield also has a National Monuments Record (English Heritage), with a monument number of: 335142.
Return to Top
This selection of deployment conjectures or interpretations form part of the historiography of the Battle of Edgehill while they also represent the key alternative deployment interpretations of modern studies.
Royalists: Are shown to the south (bottom) or to the east (right).
Parliamentarians: Are shown to the north (top) or to the west (left).
Click on their coloured polygons for detailed information. Included within most information windows are also the estimated numbers of men or horse. E.g. (℮ 500). Individual regiment details/listings supplied by: Edgehill - The Battle Reinterpreted. 2004.
These plans represent where the armies are considered to have initially deployed, and don't represent the movement seen by cavalry action, for example, or the positions of both armies at the close of the battle.
Deployment suggestions & plans currently omitted: All, and more, of the most significant deployment interpretations of modern times have been included in this website, but for completeness, concerning further study and the historiography of the Edgehill battle, included in a separate document are details of the remaining Edgehill conjectures (or varying illustrations depicting deployment positions) currently omitted.
Return to Top
Conjecture 1950: Lieutenant–Colonel Alfred Burne
A classic interpretation possibly representing the first fully considered supposition of the battle for the modern era. First published in 'The Battlefields of England' (1950), Burne also records several important details relating to the physical geography of the battlefield. Surprisingly, Burnes' plan is still reproduced in modern publications.
At the centre, both armies stand approximately 745m apart.
Best reproduction from Burne's basic sketch map & plan.
Return to Top
Conjecture 1967: Brigadier Peter Young
Arguably the definitive template and most influential deployment conjecture concerning studies of the battle. Largely emulated in countless Civil War works and Battlefield guides, for decades this conjecture unofficially occupied the position of established and unchallenged orthodoxy. Young's 'Edgehill 1642' (1967) continues to be an authoritative benchmark for any Edgehill research.
The armies stand square to the escarpment and 1.72 kilometres apart.
Return to Top
Conjecture 1970s: David Pannett
In the 1970s, while researching the wider historic landscape, Pannett recognised his work bore influence upon how the Edgehill battlefield might be interpreted. His initiative to reconstruct the contemporary battlefield terrain and shape, for the first time, led to his interpretation of where the initial frontlines may have deployed. Remarkably, over seventy years earlier, George Miller had already illustrated his interpretation of where Parliament initially deployed their army in his own battlefield map showing an identical position and orientation across the battlefield in 1896. Pannett's suggestion is included here due to its potential as being the first Edgehill example of a deployment interpretation based largely on historic terrain reconstruction.
At the centre, both armies stand approximately 755m apart.
Pannett's deployment conjecture was first published, with attribution to him, by the Battlefields Trust in 2005, and as reproduced here. (Previously it was available within English Heritage's Battlefield file at their registry in Swindon; although all apparent knowledge of the document is now lost?). However, Pannett's original - primary source - hand drawn plan, (eventually published in 2012), shows significantly different positioning and locations, which may necessitate a reworking of the version depicted here. (The 2004/7 archaeological base plan eliminates Pannett's original locations).
Return to Top
Conjecture 1984: David Smurthwaite
From the compendium: 'The Ordnance Survey Complete Guide to the Battlefields of Britain' (1984).
In many ways this is the "classic" deployment plan and is featured here as it enjoys the accolade of having been reproduced and used by, at least, three other publications: 'Walking & Exploring The Battlefields of Britain' (John Kinross, 1988), 'English Heritage, British Battles' (Ken & Denise Guest, 1996) and 'Two Men in a Trench II' (Tony Pollard & Neil Oliver), 2003.
Both armies stand approximately 1.6km apart.
Return to Top
Conjecture 2001: Keith Roberts & John Tincey
A popular and accessible, yet authoritative work; this was the first dedicated book about the battle for over thirty years: 'Edgehill 1642: First Battle of the English Civil War' (2001).
The author's expertise in Swedish and Dutch formation and Pike and Shot tactics progressed, and arguably, established the battle formations deployed at Edgehill.
The book features three engaging birds–eye view illustrations of the battlefield, including suggested terrain, some hedgerows/enclosures and an area of ploughed land. Their suggested deployment positions within the battlefield achieved some traction.
Both armies stand approximately 1.44km apart.
Artillery is represented by the triangular 'arrowhead' symbols.
Return to Top
Conjecture 2003: Foard/Pannett
Battlefields Trust document '371.pdf' dated and copyrighted 2003, illustrates a distinctly unusual interpretation by Foard/Pannett (and also features the Roberts & Tincey 2001 conjecture) and is available from the Edgehill section of the Battlefields Trust website (although the conjecture was not formally "published" in an academic journal). It features again in their Battlefields Trail (Edgcote, Cropredy Bridge & Edgehill) leaflet, first published (copyrighted) in 2004. In 2005 the Trust updated the interpretation panel at the Castle Inn, Edgehill, with the Foard/Pannett conjecture. (The plan is also reproduced in document 'deployments.pdf' - from the Trust's Edgehill website section).
Both armies of this conjecture stand approximately 760m apart, while the Parliamentarian positions adopt the same position and similar orientation, first illustrated by George Miller in his 'Rambles round the Edge Hills'[sic] book of 1896.
In 2004 - 2007 one of the conjecture's two authors, Glenn Foard, as Battlefields Trust Projects Officer directed the archaeological survey of the site and authored an interim report in 2005.* It featured the publication of Pannett's similar 1970s deployment supposition and lent support to its rationale. The Edgehill survey has potentially been proven as a critical test case for battlefield archaeological methodologies elsewhere. (See 'Foard's Conjecture 2009').
*Battlefields Annual Review - ISBN: 1 84415 281 2
Also in 2003 a very similar deployment plan was published in the revised second edition of the well–known battlefields compendium and guide 'The Military Heritage of Britain and Ireland' (Martin Marix Evans) and is 'ahead of the curve' by including the suggested hedgerow perimeter which presumably influences the conjecture.
Return to Top
Conjecture 2004: Christopher Scott, Alan Turton, Dr Deric Gruber Von Arni
A thorough, considered, original and comprehensive study of the battle featuring a detailed narrative, discussion and deployment interpretation: 'Edgehill, The Battle Reinterpreted' (2004). Notably, the book also proposes an alternative deployment pattern.
The centres stand approximately 1.8km apart.
Plan reproduced from their formal deployment plan described as
The deployment of both armies (p67). A
computer–generated conjecture, overlaid upon a birds–eye view aerial photograph - within the book's central coloured plates and labelled as
The armies on the field - illustrates differing positions with both armies' notably positioned further forwards (towards each other).
Return to Top
Conjecture 2009: Dr Glenn Foard
Battle archaeologist Glenn Foard published his initial archaeological findings and a new battlefield deployment interpretation in 2009: Foard, G., The investigation of early modern battlefields in England, in Schlachtfeldarchäeologie: Battlefield Archaeology, H. Meller, Editor. 2009, Lamdesmuseums für Vorgeschichte: Halle, Germany. (p117–125, in English). This was a compendium of the Central German Archaeological Conference of Oct 2008.
Foard's interpretation based predominantly on the landmark 2004-2007 large scale systematic archaeological survey of the battlefield provides a remarkable, robust and persuasively conclusive result.
As the Battlefields Trust Projects Officer, Foard directed the Edgehill survey - which was grant aided by the Local Heritage Initiative - and included experimental ballistics firing, historic terrain reconstruction and re-evaluation of historic documents.
For locating or improving the understanding of many battlefields Foard recommends landscape archaeology to reconstruct a historic terrain to better locate within the landscape the documented events and military history, but to then validate any hypothesis with the battle's archaeological evidence. While Foard clearly doubted most previous conjectures which proposed locations for Edgehill's initial front lines, and supported a significantly different suggestion as early as 2003, the archaeology left by the action across Edgehill's battlefield ultimately informed an entirely original interpretation.
The centres stand approximately 1km apart.
In the Edgehill survey the three main sets of evidence for the battle have been explored in the form of an historic terrain reconstruction; a reanalysis of the original documentary accounts of the battle; and the large scale survey of the battle archaeology. The integration of these three data sets has provided the basis for a major reinterpretation of the battle. The result has been the reorientation of the battle lines by 90 degrees from past studies based on military history alone, and to show exactly how the different elements of the action can be securely fitted into more than 5 km² of the landscape.
The battlefield reinterpretation was again illustrated, along with some further archaeological detail in May 2012 (The Archaeology of English Battlefields - Conflict in the Pre-Industrial Landscape. G. Foard & R. Morris). The most comprehensive review of the survey was published in Dec 2012 - based on Foard's original PhD thesis of 2008: (Battlefield Archaeology of the English Civil War. G. Foard).
Read more: Further selected details and quotes concerning the survey/project.
Please note: Foard's 2009 illustration of deployment positions did not label the individual units, but the battle formations were familiar and they have been assumed here to follow the Tincey & Roberts pattern. Flanking dragoons were not included within the 2009+ illustration(s).
The author of this website comments about the new battlefield interpretation on the 'About this website & battlefield' page (The 2009 New Interpretion).
Return to Top
Between August 2004 and March 2007, the Battlefields Trust undertook a major survey of the Edgehill battlefield using systematic metal detecting across 5 km² of the landscape. Directed by Dr Glenn Foard the survey produced 1096 lead bullets and helped Foard determine a reorientation of the battlefield and suggest the logical starting positions for each army. (Published in 2009).
A total of 3250 artefacts were collected and retained during the Edgehill survey. Of these 1096 are early modern lead bullets of a wide range of calibre and type. Only a handful of the other non-ferrous items are almost certainly of military origin, by far the largest group being the 29 powder box caps and priming flask tops from musketeers bandoliers. […] The Edgehill bullets can be subdivided into five main groupings by calibre and type: 497 ball of musket calibre; 155 ball of carbine calibre; 295 ball of pistol calibre; 34 slugs of carbine or pistol calibre; and 127 balls fired as case from artillery.
For the general viewer this 'Archaeological Finds' dynamic overlay provides an impression of the spread of bullets (only) recovered from across the battlefield. The survey established a broad and comprehensive base survey with a consistent sampling rate, from transects spaced at 10m intervals, which produced an informed picture of the action across the landscape. Key areas were then resurveyed more intensely with areas of case shot most notably also providing evidence of artillery positions. Significant areas of the central battlefield could not be surveyed as the archaeology had been destroyed by modern construction (such as the DSDA munitions bunkers and landscaping), previous 20th century silos, sheds and rail tracks (as seen in the 1947 verticals) and modern plantations (including Graveground Coppice), but the survey methodology produced sufficiently meaningful patterning on which to base credible interpretations.
Detail of the archaeology - including specific details illustrating the significance of the different calibre and type of bullet and where they were discovered - were first published in: Schlachtfeldarchäeologie: Battlefield Archaeology, H. Meller, Editor. 2009.
A selection of quotes concerning this milestone survey (and the related project) are compiled within the 2009 conjecture - expanded page.
Additional Archaeology: As well as numinous reports of musket balls, cannon balls and general battle detritus recorded in antiquarian books and by Young in 1967, two additional, but smaller, metal detecting surveys of significance also recorded finds from the battlefield. Available here is a compendium of archaeological finds from the Battle of Edgehill.
Return to Top