The English Civil War

[Derfasciti]

I am currently reading Death to The King by Clifford Lindsey Alderman it seems pretty childish but it's a basic history which is what I wanted. In your opinion, who was in the right and in what other ways do you think it could have ended and what would be their outcomes?

Pretty much I'm just trying to open up a discussion on the subject in general. While I'm an American, I think this war had a profound affect world-wide.

[King Henry V]

As an English monarchist, I naturally support the King though I do recognise the fact that he was one of the worst kings England has know, Civil War or no civil war. Had he been more decisive, had he listened more to his nephews the Princes Rupert and Maurice rather than ineffectual commanders such as Lord Digby and the Earl of Newcastle.
However, ironically I do believe the Civil War actually saved the monarchy when it did return it was with reduced powers and did not become an absolute monarchy like France, whose monarchy would be swept away 140 years later.

[Derfasciti]

An English Monarchist? Is this just someone who likes the idea of having a monarch as a figurehead or do you wish for the modern monarch to have more power. I'm just curious, not trying to start a flamewar. I actually know of an AMERICAN royalist political party. But I think they're disbanded now.

[King Henry V]

Ideally, I think the best form of government is a monarchy, one with many powers and an able, intelligent and handsome Chief Minister who happens to visit a Total War fan forum and has recently been writing some stuff on the English Civil War 1135-54. OK, that's enough megalomania for the day.
But I do fully support the Monarchy.

[InsaneApache]

An interesting question. The civil war, although called the 'English' civil war actually involved all the three kingdoms and the principality that constitute the UK.

Charles' I attitude was that he had the divine right to rule, the elected members of Parliament disagreed. Also he married a Catholic, which went down like a lead balloon with the Anglicans and other Protestant factions. (BTW Maryland was named after her).

He riled the fundamentalists by changing the common book of prayer and further estranged them by dissolving Parliament.

When war loomed he had no choice than to recall Parliament in order to levy the taxes needed to fight in Europe. Parliament seized it's chance by declaring that they would help the King raise the revenues required, BUT, only if he would agree to lose the power of dissolving the assembly.

He took this very badly. After all he ruled by the grace of God and who were these commoner upstarts to lay the law down to him.

Things quickly went from bad to worse. The war was a disaster. The King was becoming more and more unpopular.

The spark that ignited the civil war was when Charles attempted to arrest members of Parliament by marching troops into the commons. (this is why the current monarchy have to knock on the doors of Parliament before being allowed access). This was a big mistake. He further compounded his error by then dissolving Parliament again.

Well of course he lost the first civil war and whilst under house arrest made a pact with the Irish Catholics to raise an army to take back his Kingdom. A fatal error. It cost him his head.

The irony is that Cromwell did exactly the same thing a few years later when he and his soldiers also marched into Parliament and closed it down. Ruling from then on by decree.

I believe it did change the course of, not only the UK, but also the world. After all there is a chain of thought that the ideals and principles espoused in the civil war were largely forgotten a hundred years or so later. This is when many historians believe that we had another civil war, one that this time, we lost.

We learned from that painful experience and so far have largely managed to avoid repeating it.

I'm sure that most of what I posted is correct.....but I'm sure any errors will be pointed out to me. :bow:

BTW what was the impact of the war in the Americas? Was there actually any fighting, or did they stay out of it?

[Derfasciti]

When you say war in the Americas are you refering to the first civil war or the other one (the revolutionary war)?

[Reverend Joe]

Well, unless I'm totally mistaken on this subject, before and during the civil war, the North American (continental) colonies were ruled entirely by two unpleasant Catholic viceroys, who at one point temporaily divided up the colonies into two vice-royalties. When the war broke out, the worried Viceroys decided to suppress information about the truoble until it was quelled, so that the colonists would not revolt during such an opportune time. Unfortunately, when word inevitably spread of the chaos abroad- but, more importantly, that it had been hidden from the colonists- the Viceroys found themselves in the middle of a furious Protestant, pro-Parlimentary rebellion. Frankly, they might not have had nearly so much trouble had they not tried to hide the civil war at home. As soon as the Civil war proper was over, the Viceroys were officialy removed by Parliment, much to the jubilation of the rebelling colonists. From that point on, until the Proclamation of 1763 robbed them of what they had fought for in the Seven Years' War, the Colonists would remain mostly loyal and peaceful.

[King Henry V]

Well seeing as the colonists were mostly devout Puritans, I should think that they were staunch supporters of Parliament.

[Pannonian]

BTW what was the impact of the war in the Americas? Was there actually any fighting, or did they stay out of it?
According to a documentary on the regicides, some of the more evangelical colonists returned to the motherland to help radicalise the parliamentarian cause (one of them being hdqed as such afterwards by Chuck 2). Presumably this would mean there wasn't much actual conflict in the Americas itself.

[InsaneApache]

When you say war in the Americas are you refering to the first civil war or the other one (the revolutionary war)?


BTW what was the impact of the war in the Americas? Was there actually any fighting, or did they stay out of it?

This was a reference to the 'English' civil war.


After all there is a chain of thought that the ideals and principles espoused in the civil war were largely forgotten a hundred years or so later. This is when many historians believe that we had another civil war, one that this time, we lost.

This was in reference to the colonial rebellion.

:bow:

[Derfasciti]

I'm an American and I do believe as an amateur historian that the Revolutionary War was indeed an English Civil War myself. Much like the American Civil War a century after this.

[Mount Suribachi]

My opinion was that King Charles was an intelligent, articulate, self-confident, polite, arrogant, short-sighted, misguided, untrustworthy fool who had to die for there to be peace/

Throughout his reign his modus operandi was the same. Whenever there was trouble, he would move quickly to appease the troublemakers who would accept a deal. Then as soon as things calmed down again he would go back on his word and round up all those who he had just agreed a deal with. Did it time and again, little and big, both before & during the civil war.

His arrogant & misguided belief in the divine right to rule (based upon a self-favouring mis-interpretation of certain Biblical passages regarding Kingly rule) meant that he was never interested in a lasting comprimise with Parliament, only total victory. He was unable to see that the social & religious status of Britain was changing, and he was unwilling to adapt to the changing situation.

In the period between the two civil wars he was constantly intrueging, constantly playing one side against the other. As long as he was alive, there could never be peace.

His trial, as many writers have pointed out, had the merest veneer of legality, but that is because the law was wrong. A monarch is NOT above the law, even if the law says so, for all men are created equal. Charles made a very eloquent defense of his position, asking by what authority he was being tried, but that is to quibble over a technicality, rather than what is right and just. He also showed the difficulty in putting a former absolute ruler on trial (cf Milosovic and Saddam Hussein).

By the modern day term, I am a monarchist, but by the standards of the 1600s, I am most assuredly a parliamentarian.

Its also interesting to read to demands of the New Model Army. To 21st century eyes their political agenda is remarkably modernist - one can only imagine how shockingly revolutionary it must have seemed back then.

Regarding America, on more than one occasion Cromwell and other leading Puritans contemplated taking ship for the Americas.


The irony is that Cromwell did exactly the same thing a few years later when he and his soldiers also marched into Parliament and closed it down. Ruling from then on by decree.

Isn't that so often the case with revolutionaries? They become that which they claimed to be fighting against? Shades of Animal Farm and all that.

In Cromwells case, I think it was born partly out of necessity to control the country and keep it stable after so many years of turmoil, partly out of his providentialist belief that God had shown his will in this matter more than once, so he was right to use whatever it took to enforce the will of God. This is seen in his much harsher treatment of his opponents in the 2nd civil war and in Ireland, whereas before then he was much more merciful and gracious.