British Civil War

#1
What if Charles attacked London when he had the chance? What if he didn't turn about and March to Oxford? Would be dictated? I can't imagine what our country would be like :eek:

Can you? :arrow:
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#4
commander-adama said:
I don't know the answer but i think we need another Cromwell now to take over!!!
Yes, a red hot Proddy with a warty face. Yep, that's just what this counrty needs. I suppose you could always offer the job to Big Ian.
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#5
RoyalEngineers said:
What if Charles attacked London when he had the chance? What if he didn't turn about and March to Oxford? Would be dictated? I can't imagine what our country would be like :eek:

Can you? :arrow:
You'd have all been finer people for it.
 
#6
We already have a puritanical madman in parliament who wishes to see the Queen removed as Head of State.

I for one shall be more than happy to see his entrails scattered to the four corners of our Kingdom!
 
#7
Vivat Carolus Rex

.....as the flag of the Irish Catholic Confederation of the 1640s used to say.

Like Louis XVI after him, Charles I was a well-meaning, yet weak and vacillating monarch at a crucial period. Ultimately though, the British Civil Wars (don't forget Scotland and Ireland) and the later Glorious Revolution established parliamentary democracy and reinforced the position of the monarchy; the alternative was what happened in France from 1789 onwards.
 
#8
he would have lost, london was a parliamentarian city and it was very well defended....



(and it was the ENGLISH Civil War)
 
#9
one-flew-over said:
A puritan madman - I think not. God Save the Queen and damn you for suggesting her downfall.
The Queens an excellent Monarch so i'll keep her,not sure about the rest of her dysfunctional family though!
 
#10
bensonby said:
he would have lost, london was a parliamentarian city and it was very well defended....



(and it was the ENGLISH Civil War)
...which must be why Scotland was at war from 1637 and Ireland from 1641 (until 1654).
 
#11
The_Cad said:
We already have a puritanical madman in parliament who wishes to see the Queen removed as Head of State.

I for one shall be more than happy to see his entrails scattered to the four corners of our Kingdom!
He is also increasingly resembling a character from a Vincent Price Horror film with his pasty white face.
He gives me the creeps,i'm sure he sleeps in a coffin instead of a bed!!
 

oldbaldy

LE
Moderator
#13
bensonby said:
he would have lost, london was a parliamentarian city and it was very well defended....



(and it was the ENGLISH Civil War)
There was me thinking there was an Act of Union before 1707!
 

oldbaldy

LE
Moderator
#14
RoyalEngineers said:
What if Charles attacked London when he had the chance? What if he didn't turn about and March to Oxford? Would be dictated? I can't imagine what our country would be like :eek:

Can you? :arrow:
Lots of 'what ifs' in history.

What if Charles Stewart hadn't turned round at Derby & gone on to an undefended London, would England be ruled by Scots?
Oh sh!t they are. :D
 
#15
Indeed it was the English Civil War. Certainly the first and second Civil War were anyway. The royalists in Scotland were far too busy fighting against the so-called covenanters from 1644 onward. After Montrose had his butt handed to him by the covenanters of course, Charles II join forces with the covenanters and became the single biggest threat to the English republic.

This led, almost inevitably, to what is now described by most historians as the third English Civil War, although most of the military activity took place in Scotland. After various jigs and reels, which resulted in the New Model Army capturing various key points in Scotland and Charles II heading deep into England, Cromwell finally defeated Chas at the Battle of Worcester. Which pretty much put an end to the royalist cause until after Cromwell was long dead.
 
#16
gallowglass said:
bensonby said:
he would have lost, london was a parliamentarian city and it was very well defended....



(and it was the ENGLISH Civil War)
...which must be why Scotland was at war from 1637 and Ireland from 1641 (until 1654).
But Scotland was an independant nation and Ireland ruled by the English Crown, so I guess technically it was only a civil war for the English. For the rest of us, it was just a war.

I doubt Charles would have been able to take London, let alone hold it. He'd have had to concentrate everything he had round it and that would have left his heartlands in the north and west open to attack by predatory Parliamentarians. Not defending his supporters would be a great way to lose them, let alone anything else.

For my money, it worked out pretty well in the long run. I do think it a bit of a shame that Cromwell got such a bad rep, the man did have a fair dollop of greatness about him.
 
#17
bensonby said:
(and it was the ENGLISH Civil War)
British as in the British Isles - a geographical grouping which existed even then. The Civil War stretched to every country in the British Isles with groups in each country fighting for both sides (eg Coventers v Montrose etc).

I suggets that the policial entity that eventually became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and (Northern) Ireland did not yet exist is not relevant to that fact.

Regards,
 
#19
The_Cad said:
We already have a puritanical madman in parliament who wishes to see the Queen removed as Head of State.

I for one shall be more than happy to see his entrails scattered to the four corners of our Kingdom!
Seconded.
 
#20
“Indeed it was the English Civil War. Certainly the first and second Civil War were anyway”

Which I would say is a simplistic view of the wars

Please forgive me if I make small errors as doing this off the top of my head. To describe the English Civil war as English is simply put wrong the war involved all corners of the British Isles. Although their effect can best be summed up by a ploughman who protested the removal of a hedge on the hill over looking Marston Moor in 1644 when told there was a war on between King and Parliament replied “have those two fallen out then”, this is after the war had been going for 2 years.

I hope the following supports my point.

In Ireland following a cease fire agreed with the Irish Catholics the English army was suddenly free and from mid 1643 mixed Anglo Irish forces were landing all over the West Coast to support he Royalists. Unfortunately Parliaments’ control of the fleet meant that although they arrived in numbers which often had a local effect these numbers were never significant enough to have a similar effect on a national level. Especially as the majority of the “soldiers” arriving where under equipped and in some cases almost unclothed. There exists a letter from Prince Rupert’s quartermaster to the Prince saying that an other contingent of Irish had arrived but he lacked the uniforms to cloth them unless Rupert was prepared to have them arrayed in mixed uniforms some green some blue.

Whilst the Irish were supporting the Royalists Scotland was a different kettle of fish. From late 43 the parliamentarians were negotiating with the Scottish government to bring an army into the North East the agreement to pay and supply it and to consider the introduction of a Presbyterian form of worship being two of the two main conditions that brought this army over the border.

Consisting of on paper 50,000 men the army was probably half this size it removed the dominance of the Marquis of Newcastle’s army in the theatre and their arrival led eventually to the battle of Marston Moor in July 1644 which was the decisive battle of the wars in the North.


So as I hope you can see despite their title the war was very much a British thing.
 

Latest Threads

Top