When Charles raised his Standard in Nottingham 1642 it was unclear who, or how, the war would be won, but Parliament's Victory in The Civil War 1646, can be explained by a Multitude of reasons, most notably; a Royalist lack of finance [or more generally resources], and Parliamentary revolutionary Reform and Organisation.
Firstly the areas that Parliament held over the course of the civil war were more populous, wealthy and fertile than that of the Royalist's. Crucially Parliaments hold over London gave them significant privileges, including drawing funds from excise duties and a large, easily taxed, mercantile class. Whereas Royalist control lay over the poor, sparsely populated areas of the Country including Wales, the North, and portions of the Southwest.
Although in the first months of the war the Royalists were mostly better funded, despite their limited land held. This was due to Charles's support base, 75% of the English Aristocracy, who funded the initial stages of the war effort by selling their own possessions and raising personal regiments of Troop and Horse; also Parliaments main means of finance was taxation which took time to collect.
Parliament's acknowledgement for a need for organization of the war gave Parliament another advantage over the Royalists. An example of this is The Committee of Safety, first established on 4 July 1642, its purpose was liaise between the Members of Parliament at Westminster and Parliament's armies in the field. However disagreements over strategy reduced the Committee's effectiveness and Parliament achieved limited military success under its direction. Though the Royalists had far more organization problems, the King only first called the Oxford Parliament in December 1643.
Parliament took a decisive step by securing the alliance of the Presbyterian Scots in accepting the Solemn League and Covenant. A Scottish army, under Alexander Leslie, advanced into Yorkshire early in 1644 and gave aid to the parliamentary army in the north. This led to the battle of Marston Moor (July 2, 1644), in which Cromwell, leading Parliament, and Leslie inflicted a crushing defeat on the royalists. The Royalists had lost their Northern foothold, the city of York. This further exacerbated the Royalists already inferior resources reducing potential recruitment grounds and a valuable place to tax.
The radical reform such as the Self Denying Ordinance 1645 proved advantageous to the Parliamentary cause. It was clear that Essex and Manchester were at best halfhearted in pursuing the fight against the royalists In response to this the Self Denying Ordinance was prepared, and after a secondary redraft, the bill outlined that required resignations from all members of both House's, but did not forbid reappointment of the officers. The Self-denying ordinance improved military unity by separating the quarrels in Parliament from the immediate operations of command. In practical terms, the Ordinance solidified the power of Cromwell and his "war party" faction.
A comparison of Commanders to provide an analysis of why Parliament won is required. In the Initial stages of the war the two most senior Parliamentarian commanders were the Earl of Essex and the Earl of Manchester, chosen because of their prestige rather than military abilities, characteristically reluctant to deliver a decisive blow to the Royalist cause and seemingly seeking for peace rather than a victory.
Whereas the Royalist's were led by the young, flamboyant and enthusiastic Prince Rupert, Charles's nephew, an experienced fighter on the continent and renowned for his triumphant cavalry charges, as seen at Edge Hill 1642, though also shown at Edge Hill was Rupert's inability to instil discipline in his cavalry which arguably resulted in the miss of a potential great victory. However in the latter stages of the war new commanders replaced the Parliamentarians command, based on Merit rather than Title. These were Sir Thomas Fairfax and his Lieutenant Oliver Cromwell.
Cromwell was careful to recruit only "godly, honest men" as his troopers and to lead them with firm discipline. Sir Thomas Fairfax was a gallant and courageous commander who led the New Model Army to a decisive Victory at the Battle of Naseby 1645.
The New Model Army was a remodelling of the Parliamentarian Army, first proposed by Sir William Waller 1644, which had a significant contribution to Parliaments victory. The changes included, officers that were appointed and promoted on merit rather than on their status, regular pay of eight pence a day, in exchange for guaranteed regular pay there was a ban on the looting and plundering of occupied towns and baggage trains and with it a new emphasis on discipline. Within months of its formation, the New Model inflicted a decisive defeat on the Royalists at the battle of Naseby, and brought the First Civil War to an end the following year.
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
The rejection of constitutionalism by Charles I’s sour relationship with the Parliament and Oliver Cromwell’s dissolving of Parliament, along with the acceptance of constitutionalism through the Glorious Revolution during the reign of William and Mary all resulted in a strong English power and newly reinforced parliamentary rights.…
- 637 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
When King Charles I dismissed Parliament in 1629, he was set on the idea of a personal rule without any help from Parliament. This he could manage, as long as he avoided war. His aim was to sort out the country's finances, and with the help of Strafford and Laud, impose a 'Policy of Thorough'. This policy was the idea of a fair and paternalistic government with no corruption. However, within 11 years, Charles' personal rule had failed and England was drifting into war. There are mixed opinions on whether this failure was solely due to the actions of the King, or those of third parties, for example, Strafford or Laud.…
- 1052 Words
- 5 Pages
Good Essays -
One of the main reasons why Charles and Parliament failed to reach a settlement was due to religion, especially with the division between the Political Presbyterians and Political Independents. The differences between the two were that Political Presbyterians favoured a negotiated peace with Charles and did not approve of the New Model Army, and were also drawn more closely to the Presbyterian Scots whereas the Political Independents were in favour of a more considerable measure of religious toleration and disliked the authoritarianism of Scottish Presbyterianism. This division throughout Parliament meant that they had failed to reach a settlement negotiating peace terms that was to be decided upon them. In July 1646, the Political Presbyterians had presented Charles with the Newcastle Propositions as their plan for settlement which consisted of severe terms such as Charles was to accept Presbyterianism for three years in England, Parliament was to have control of the militia for 20 years, and the Triennial Act was not to be abolished and to have regular parliaments. Charles rejected these terms of the Newcastle Propositions and instead offered counter-proposals suggesting that the…
- 1416 Words
- 6 Pages
Good Essays -
However, it is unfair to suggest that Charles was fully responsible for all royalist failures. Despite having poorer resources to begin with, the royalists seemed to have the upper hand towards the middle of the war, winning many battles such as Adwalton Moor, and Roundway Down, and the successful siege of Bristol. The road to London appeared to be open. However, they failed to capitalise on early victories, at the fault of the poor military leadership. The divided nature of the royalist councils, for example the relationship between Rupert and Digby lead to a lack of coordination of their forces. The royalists were limited in their alliances, and the Cessation Treaty failed to supply the royalists with enough troops, again weakening their cause. The inability to raise sufficient funding for the war, due to the smaller tax base of the royalists, meant they failed to create a…
- 976 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
Charles’s led the country without calling parliament for 11 years from 1629 – 1640. He initiated personal rule for many reasons. Firstly his close relationship with Buckingham alienated Parliament and caused resentment by Parliament. Secondly Charles had very strong believed in divine right and therefore saw no need for Parliament. Furthermore Charles religious policy’s led many to believe of a Catholic Conspiracy, which further distanced the King from Parliament. Lastly the King wasn’t getting substantial financial help from Parliament and decided that he would try and raise the finance without him.…
- 1197 Words
- 4 Pages
Powerful Essays -
3. Within the succession of James I and the Glorious Revolution, the role of Parliament in England was presented with a series of alterations including being neglected due to the idea of ruling by absolutism, being diminished altogether by Oliver Cromwell, and finally being restored and receiving it’s power back by William of Orange.…
- 907 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
The British believed the only way they could win was if they moved quickly, so to win and move quickly at the same time British used the following strategies that they thought would have helped them succeed in the war. General Howe had two strategies he used, his first strategy was sending a huge number of troops into New York city trying to show the americans that if they could separate New England from the South that the Americans had no chance of winning. His second strategy was that he invited delegates from the continental congress to a peace conference, he said if the Americans surrendered and swore loyalty to the king those who did so would be pardoned. After many time of negotiating with General Howe the Americans decided to talk any…
- 164 Words
- 1 Page
Satisfactory Essays -
Opportunities for income such as taxing the American colonists in order to pay for the army protecting them. Before the war started most of the colonies had directly contributed to British custom revenue. According to Robert Wilde It appeared to the British government that a few new taxes to pay for their garrison should be easily absorbed…
- 551 Words
- 3 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
Both Charles I and James I tried to rule without parliament’s consent, but parliament’s control at the time was so great that neither Charles nor James were able to successfully decrease its role in English government. In the Bill of Rights, it is declared by parliament that certain actions are illegal without consent of parliament. For example, “The king’s supposed power of suspending laws without the consent of parliament is illegal” (James Madison). The English were not ready to give all the power of government to a single person because they had been under the combined rule of both the king and the assembly for such an extended time. Parliament, where members could be elected and changed as necessary, as opposed to an absolute monarch with no restraints, was supported by land-owning nobles and merchants. In 1642, differences between parliament and Charles I sparked England's civil war, which was partially caused by the refusal of parliament to give up their power in government and partly by royal stubbornness to share control of the country. This was the chief turning point for absolutism in England. Beginning with Charles II, monarchs realized the amount of power Parliament had and knew that instead of working against one another, they had to work with each other. Since parliament was so centralized and so stalwartly entrenched into the…
- 949 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
They felt that they were being taxed without representation, however, English parliament disagreed and said that they were being adequately represented. As colonies of the British government, they were there to serve the mother country and that their representatives were the contributing to parliament for the benefit of the people. It is important to understand both sides to the issues because taxation without representation was one of the reasons that the Revolutionary War began and how these issues affected the world to become what is…
- 346 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
From the mid 1750s through the early 1760s Great Britain involved themselves in a costly war with the French that allowed the British to acquire vast amounts of new territory yet left its economy in financial disaster. the British spent large amounts of money to supply its army and navy with necessary equipment that would help them to conquer the French. this costly war left England struggling to find ways to pay off large amounts of war debt. instead of finding other means to pay of its debt, the british decided to levy taxes upon the American colonies, and to move troops into the colonies to monitor…
- 862 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
The English Civil War began in 1642 between King Charles I and Parliament. Wealthy nobles, known as Royalists, supported the king. Supporters of Parliament included Puritans, who were led by Oliver Cromwell. Cromwell eventually became commander-in-chief of Parliament’s army. A number of battles took place between the king’s troops and Cromwell’s army, some of which are shown on the map below. The first battle, which took place at Edgehill, did not gain ground for either side. After a series of victories, however, Cromwell and Parliament took control of London and, eventually, England. In 1649 Charles I was publicly beheaded, and Parliament alone ruled England.…
- 321 Words
- 2 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
Stated in history.state.gov," Parliament, said they had the right to tax the American colonies to help pay bills for the war." With that being said they had no choice, no say, and no freedom. In addition, they didn’t have many rights which was unfair. They overall didn’t like the way they were being governed.…
- 366 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
The Union had many advantages during the Civil War. The Union had leaders that were far more valuable than the ones that the Confederacy had. The valuable leaders that the Union had possessed were Ulysses S. Grant, Philip Sheridan, and Abraham Lincoln. The Union was in the middle of an industrial revolution at the same time as the Civil War which meant that they had a booming economy. The Union had organized banks and had easy access to the supplies that they had needed.…
- 451 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
The American antebellum South, though steeped in pride and raised in military tradition, was to be no match for the burgeoning superiority of the rapidly developing North in the coming Civil War. The lack of emphasis on manufacturing and commercial interest, stemming from the Southern desire to preserve their traditional agrarian society, surrendered to the North their ability to function independently, much less to wage war. It was neither Northern troops nor generals that won the Civil War, rather Northern guns and industry. From the onset of war, the Union had obvious advantages.…
- 2915 Words
- 12 Pages
Powerful Essays