it a good idea to list the contenders and summarise the arguments, and maybe even draw a few conclusions of my own. The main problem, most of have in entering into such a detailed discussion is the lack of primary sources we have access to, or time to look at. We are thus more historiographers rather than true historians, in that we must rely on the researches and ideas of others and draw our own conclusions from these.

The deeper one goes into Newcastle's the more confusing I find the evidence. For example, although Newcastle certainly raised a foote regimente, it is not quite so clear as to when, and for what purpose. It may in fact be that he raised two units which were 'his'. The one we know as Newcastle's which served in the campaigns in the North from 1642-1644, and another which went south with an ammunition convoy which was absorbed into the Oxford Army.

" … and he raised there (Newcastle), … , a troop of horse and a regiment of foot, which he ordered to convey some arms and ammunition to his Majesty …, his majesty was pleased to keep the same convoy" (see note 1)