|
|
Post by greenhert on May 21, 2020 13:20:09 GMT
What would the short and long term impact on British history have been if the Royalists instead of the Parliamentarians had won the English Civil War?
The first major battle, the Battle of Edge Hill, is considered to have been a draw by historians. It is clear that Royalist tactical mistakes, not only by King Charles I but also his nephew Rupert, were a key factor behind the Parliamentarian side winning (the Battle of Naseby in 1645 being the most decisive); unlike the American Civil War the odds were not stacked in favour of the eventual winners from the start.
|
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on May 21, 2020 14:00:11 GMT
No Humpty Dumpty toys or Nursary Rhymne as it is likely that Humpty Dumpty wouldn't have fallen off Colchester's wall.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2020 14:02:40 GMT
What would the short and long term impact on British history have been if the Royalists instead of the Parliamentarians had won the English Civil War? The first major battle, the Battle of Edge Hill, is considered to have been a draw by historians. It is clear that Royalist tactical mistakes, not only by King Charles I but also his nephew Rupert, were a key factor behind the Parliamentarian side winning (the Battle of Naseby in 1645 being the most decisive); unlike the American Civil War the odds were not stacked in favour of the eventual winners from the start. The Parliamentarians had three key advantages. Firstly, once the war was underway, they were fighting for high stakes. As Oliver Cromwell said - If we fight a hundred times and beat him ninety-nine he will be King still, but if he beats us but once, or the last time, we shall be hanged, we shall lose our estates, and our posterities be undone.Secondly, they had an ideology (for want of a better word) which strengthened their fighting spirit. Thirdly, although the Royalists initially controlled a large part of the country, this was made up of the periphery. The Parliamentarians controlled London and the core, and had easier communications. |
|
|
|
Post by Peter Wilkinson on May 21, 2020 16:18:04 GMT
What would the short and long term impact on British history have been if the Royalists instead of the Parliamentarians had won the English Civil War? The first major battle, the Battle of Edge Hill, is considered to have been a draw by historians. It is clear that Royalist tactical mistakes, not only by King Charles I but also his nephew Rupert, were a key factor behind the Parliamentarian side winning (the Battle of Naseby in 1645 being the most decisive); unlike the American Civil War the odds were not stacked in favour of the eventual winners from the start. The Parliamentarians had three key advantages. Firstly, once the war was underway, they were fighting for high stakes. As Oliver Cromwell said - If we fight a hundred times and beat him ninety-nine he will be King still, but if he beats us but once, or the last time, we shall be hanged, we shall lose our estates, and our posterities be undone.I'm afraid that what Cromwell apparently actually said was in response to that remark - If this be so, why did we take up arms?The sentence you quote was apparently said by the Earl of Manchester, who was supposed to be Cromwell's superior at the time but never got on well with his enthusiastic subordinate. Manchester seems to have retired into private life some while after this exchange, to emerge again only at the Restoration, which he supported. This might explain how his posterity continued to be sufficiently done to remain in the House of Lords until Blair's exclusion of the hereditary peers in 1999. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on May 21, 2020 17:36:49 GMT
The Parliamentarians had three key advantages. Firstly, once the war was underway, they were fighting for high stakes. As Oliver Cromwell said - If we fight a hundred times and beat him ninety-nine he will be King still, but if he beats us but once, or the last time, we shall be hanged, we shall lose our estates, and our posterities be undone.I'm afraid that what Cromwell apparently actually said was in response to that remark - If this be so, why did we take up arms?The sentence you quote was apparently said by the Earl of Manchester, who was supposed to be Cromwell's superior at the time but never got on well with his enthusiastic subordinate. Manchester seems to have retired into private life some while after this exchange, to emerge again only at the Restoration, which he supported. This might explain how his posterity continued to be sufficiently done to remain in the House of Lords until Blair's exclusion of the hereditary peers in 1999. I'm not sure it was an advantage anyway. I remember a documentary about the Eastern Front in WW2 discussing the fact that the Red Army tended to shoot prisoners (possibly just SS, I forget). Initially this strengthened German resolve since surrender was not an option, but if it became apparent a unit was at risk of being surrounded there could be sudden collapses of morale as everyone tried to get out before the pocket closed. I can imagine that if London had been on the point of falling there might have been a mass exodus to Holland of prominent Parliamentarians. Also, the stakes could be high for Royalists too. Richard Holmes' (excellent) biography of Marlborough shows how the latter's notorious political coat-turning was a reaction to his father's loss of property (and humiliating dependency on Parliamentarian relatives) due to loyalty; Marlborough was absolutely determined that nothing of the sort would happen to him. And the Churchills were minor gentry, not high profile Royalists of whom an example might be made. My impression is that @goodoldcause2's third reason was decisive and if anything understated - the Parliamentarian core territory included almost all of the arms manufacturing and shipbuilding areas (both heavily concentrated on London in the C17th) and a large part of the coast closest to the continent and therefore of trade. IIRC the King's fleet went over to Parliament at the start of the war too, which must have been galling given the thing had been built with Ship Money. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on May 22, 2020 9:04:26 GMT
Let's say they do manage to pull it off. Here's an odd one. Does England intervene earlier in the Portuguese Restoration War?
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on May 22, 2020 9:06:09 GMT
Let's say they do manage to pull it off. Here's an odd one. Does England intervene earlier in the Portuguese Restoration War? Niche, but I like it. |
|
slon
Non-Aligned
Posts: 13,330 
|
Post by slon on May 22, 2020 9:18:26 GMT
In terms of what would have happened then ... it would all come down to Charles ... who was 3 parts mad.
He could have done anything, abolished parliament, had the Magna Carta and subsequent legal controls declared void, dismiss all the judges and disband the legal framework, return to Catholicism, squash the rights of free men, stamp on nonconformist religous groups, denounce scientific learning.
He was capable of any or all of these things, he was convinced of his divine right to rule and therefore convinced that anything he did was ordained by god.
Doubt if he would have lasted more than a couple of years ... but if he had then the history of Britain might have been very different.
We could have ended up as a republic as the experience of monarchy would be forever tarnished
We could have slid backwards into feudal times with free men and nonconformists persecuted to extinction.
|
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on May 22, 2020 9:50:15 GMT
The 17th Century was arguably Britain's pivotal period. We started with something close to an absolute monarchy with Elizabeth. We ended with a monarch effectively chosen by parliament (William) and with an increasingly powerful political system (and the early development of political parties) on which the monarch relied. The trend toward a form of parliamentary rule (by an elite) had been firmly established. The religion of the monarch and his/her advisers had been set and was enforced. I'd argue that the civil wars accelerated that trend and that any Royalist victory would merely have delayed the inevitable. In addition absolutism necessarily depends on the qualities of one individual and their supporters. Charles had demonstrated repeatedly his poor judgement (including his selection of key advisers). The crisis would have repeated fairly quickly. His absolute commitment to the divine right of kings made compromise impossible.
|
|
WJ
Non-Aligned
Posts: 3,272
|
Post by WJ on May 22, 2020 13:37:20 GMT
I've often thought that as we had an anti-monarchy uprising comparatively early compared to other European states, we also got it out of our system and matured a lot earlier. If the Royalists had won, then we might have ended up with a France type situation a few decades down the line.
|
|
slon
Non-Aligned
Posts: 13,330
|
Post by slon on May 22, 2020 14:48:06 GMT
I've often thought that as we had an anti-monarchy uprising comparatively early compared to other European states, we also got it out of our system and matured a lot earlier. If the Royalists had won, then we might have ended up with a France type situation a few decades down the line. It wasn't an anti-monarchy movement, it was a movement for a constitutional monarchy which is quite a different thing.
Cromwell himself was in many ways a monarchist, he belived in a hierarchical society. He was in no way a Socialist, that type of progressive thought had no place in his world as Levellers and Diggers soon found out.
True if Charles had won and killed off parliament and tried to return Britain to a true feudal system then some time later the Levellers, Diggers and general malcontents might have become strong and we might have had a French style revolution.
|
|
WJ
Non-Aligned
Posts: 3,272
|
Post by WJ on May 22, 2020 15:32:47 GMT
I've often thought that as we had an anti-monarchy uprising comparatively early compared to other European states, we also got it out of our system and matured a lot earlier. If the Royalists had won, then we might have ended up with a France type situation a few decades down the line. It wasn't an anti-monarchy movement, it was a movement for a constitutional monarchy which is quite a different thing.
Cromwell himself was in many ways a monarchist, he belived in a hierarchical society. He was in no way a Socialist, that type of progressive thought had no place in his world as Levellers and Diggers soon found out.
True if Charles had won and killed off parliament and tried to return Britain to a true feudal system then some time later the Levellers, Diggers and general malcontents might have become strong and we might have had a French style revolution.
Sure ok, it was an anti-monarch movement rather than a broader monarchy. But my comment was not implying that Cromwell was some progressive socialist. Far from it! But is is true to say that all the followers of the parliamentarian cause were of the same ilk? And if Charles had won, would it not have stoked some broader anti monarchy movement? |
|
|
|
Post by hiberno on May 24, 2020 19:48:16 GMT
Well the following in Ireland mightn’t have occurred: The slaughter of a significant number of the population, the death of many more through a slash and burn famine that Hitler and Stalin would have been proud, the forced indenture of tens of thousands, the introduction of discriminatory laws that lasted over 160 years which penalised against a huge majority of the population. No wonder to this day Cromwell is a name that disgusts Irish people throughout the world.
|
|
iang
Lib Dem
Posts: 1,815
|
Post by iang on May 25, 2020 18:22:35 GMT
A few comments - essentially, the King would only have won the Civil War if he'd won it quickly. The turning point might be seen not so much as Edge Hill as at the (non) battle of Turnham Green shortly after, where Rupert passed up the chance to take London. Given the possession of London and the south east, and East Anglia, the longer the war went on, the bigger an advantage Parliament had. However, this does tie in with the exchange quoted above after 2nd Newbury between Manchester and Cromwell. The New Model was led by people like Cromwell & Fairfax who actually wanted to win, whereas the likes of Manchester really wanted a sort of score draw that would being the King to his senses, which wasn't ever going to happen anyway. As far socialism and the English Revolution is concerned, of course Cromwell wasn't a socialist or anything like, he was a country gentleman who believed in social hierarchy - but the Levellers weren't socialists either. The Diggers perhaps, but what is being done is underestimating the religious influences of such movements and seeing them in secular terms which isn't accurate. And the Diggers were a tiny movement - when Fairfax visited them at St George's Hill, he reported to the Army Council something along the lines of "nuts but harmless", and being Fairfax, wasn't particularly put out by their refusal to do hat-honour. Cromwell and Ireland - too big an issue to go into here, except for two comments - (a) the Irish dimension of the Civil War was intensely complex even by civil war standards (much of the garrison at Drogheda was actually English) and definitely wasn't Protestant v Catholic or English v Irish, it's much more multi faceted and (b) Cromwell wasn't greatly different to general English / British policy towards Ireland across a century or more, and what is being condemned Cromwell as a symbol of British policy in Ireland rather than just Cromwell himself
|
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on May 25, 2020 21:37:32 GMT
It probably would not have made a great deal of difference. Charles II would still have been interested in other things. Popish wives would still have been seen as a problem. The Glorious Revolution made more of a difference than the Civil War.
|
|
slon
Non-Aligned
Posts: 13,330
|
Post by slon on May 26, 2020 15:35:41 GMT
It probably would not have made a great deal of difference. Charles II would still have been interested in other things. Popish wives would still have been seen as a problem. The Glorious Revolution made more of a difference than the Civil War. Hang on ... if Charles the first had continued on the throne it is likely that Charles II and James II would never had had a chance so William and Mary would never have been in the frame.
And quite a big chance that England would have become a Republic
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on May 26, 2020 16:48:40 GMT
It probably would not have made a great deal of difference. Charles II would still have been interested in other things. Popish wives would still have been seen as a problem. The Glorious Revolution made more of a difference than the Civil War. Hang on ... if Charles the first had continued on the throne it is likely that Charles II and James II would never had had a chance so William and Mary would never have been in the frame.
And quite a big chance that England would have become a Republic
Charles 1 would have been 101 when James II died of natural causes and 85 when Charles II died so it seems wildly improbable that neither would have succeeded unless a republic had been declared. The Stuarts died at age 58 (James I) 54 (Charles II) 67 (James II) 32 (Mary II) and 49 (Anne) so there's no genetic evidence that Charles would have naturally lived beyond, say, 60 which is when Charles II succeeded anyway. Not my period but here's a thought; Charles wins quickly at Turnham Green. The Prince of Wales and Duke of York are brought up at Whitehall in post-war peace under their father's eye and are indoctrinated into an Arminian Church of England by Archbishop Laud under their father's eye, rather than France and the Spanish Netherlands under their mother's, and consequently become devout Anglicans. Does the Glorious Revolution still happen? |
|
