There is much misunderstanding over the English civil war. For such a seismic event in the nation’s history, maybe this is surprising. There’s a poor general public knowledge of the episode. Myths abound. It was not at all Parliament’s aim to replace the king with a republic, or military rule, nor was it a struggle of aristocrats versus commoners. Many families were split in their allegiance. Religion did play a part, but maybe not in the way usually understood. And the conflict was not confined to England. It involved Scotland and Ireland, too, plus fighters from several other countries.
Scotland's starting role
The war really began in 1637 in Scotland. King Charles I
thought the Scots, under a Union of the Crowns, should have uniformity of religion with England. He imposed a
new prayer book on that country. It was predictably a disaster. The Scots formulated their
protests through signing a National Covenant. It led to fighting and by 1640 a
Scots army had beaten Charles, occupying most of the north of England. Having
ruled for 10 years without it, the king at last recalled Parliament to obtain money to suppress the rebels. But the new assembly merely presented its
grievances to Charles and opposed an English invasion of Scotland.
Another more hostile so called Long Parliament then cut off
royal revenue sources like the hated ‘ship money’ and the forced loans levied by
Lord Strafford, the royal enforcer. Parliament demanded the latter’s head and against
the king’s wishes he was duly executed. Charles now wanted to recruit forces
from Ireland (then enduring awful waves of sectarian killings of Catholics and
Protestants) to impose his will on Parliament. This threat frightened many
people, including John Pym, who had opposed the power of arbitrary monarchy since 1621. The royal party resented Parliament’s demands, while Parliament under Pym’s leadership felt Charles was planning for an episcopal religious structure
and despotic royal military rule. The drift to war was obvious to pretty well
everyone.
Road to War
In January 1642 Charles, with 400 men, tried to arrest
five members in Parliament, including Pym. There had been a tip off. Observing
they had escaped he said “I see the birds have flown”. Speaker Lenthall
asserted he could say nothing as he was a servant of Parliament, not the king,
a constitutional convention that still applies.
With the battle lines drawn, so began the English
revolution. It was a struggle between two clear ideas and philosophies of
government - a representative body with defined rights, and a constitutional
head of state; or the authoritarian Stuart doctrine of the ‘divine right of
kings’. The result was to influence Britain’s affairs strongly throughout history.
So where are the myths? To start with, Parliament took
up arms to secure its traditional role and rights against authoritarian
monarchy. It emphatically did not wish to replace Charles, still less start a
military dictatorship. It just wanted him to act reasonably and
constitutionally. The king precipitately left London, raising the royal standard at Nottingham. With a clear strategic advantage in communications, plus control of major power and economic centres, Parliament expected a quick victory, thinking
Charles had no choice but to accept terms. They were wrong. The point was made
later - while the Parliamentarians must beat Charles over and over again, the king needed but a single triumph. Once
he won, they were all dead men.
An attenuated struggle?
Historians today talk of a second or third civil war,
as later battles up to Worcester in 1651 are included. But this seems to miss
the wood for the trees. Following 1642's Edgehill ‘draw’ the royalists did well.
But in 1643 after the Earl of Essex at the battle of Newbury blocked a Royalist move toward London, Pym succeeded in winning Scotland’s
support before he died in December. This initiative, by bringing in a strong Scots army to reinforce Parliamentary forces, turned the tide. With the battle of Marston Moor in July 1644, all of the north
fell to Parliament. Only 25% of England, mainly in the less prosperous west and
south west, was now in Royalist hands. From then on, the final outcome was pretty clear.
John Pym
It’s true of course that Naseby in 1645 was a major battle. But not really in strategic terms, despite the total rout of the Royalists. Its significance and renown lies more in its being the first action of the New Model, built by the army chief Fairfax with some help from Cromwell. This was Europe’s most professional disciplined combat force since Roman times. Fighting continued in Scotland and Ireland, and on sea, into the 1650s. Some historians now call the whole episode the 'Wars of three Kingdoms'. Strictly true, no doubt, but perhaps it complicates a period already difficult for many to understand.
Who fought?
Another common misconception relates to who was
involved. English armies of course, but augmented by Scottish Covenanters and
Irish Confederates. Foreigners fought too. Early on Charles tried to recruit
Spanish troops against his own people. Rupert, the Royalist cavalry leader later sacked by Charles, and
Maurice, were the king’s German nephews. They came fresh from the 30 Years’ War. By the
end, three French cavalry regiments were fighting for Charles. Some Dutch and
French Protestants fought for Parliament as well, besides a few from further
afield.
The Royalist ‘Cavaliers’ weren’t often aristocrats, and the Parliamentary
‘Roundheads’ weren't really commoners. In fact the older nobility with a
background in government and at court, and the confidence to challenge, often fought
against Charles. Royalist nobility tended to be from unpolitical families, or
those new to the ranks of the lesser aristocracy, the ‘nouveaux’. Minor ranks fought mainly for money. When that ran out
it was conscription.
The war left around 220,000 dead. Of the total, 85,000
were killed in battle. The rest were related civilian deaths or those dying of
disease. These losses were severe - 4% of the total 5.5m English and Scottish
population. Pro rata this was twice the number of UK deaths in World War I. The
equivalent in today’s terms would be a huge 2.5million. So this was a vicious and
costly war. It caused years of disruption to the country’s political, economic
and social life, and offered many people a chance to settle local scores.
Religion was a key factor on the Parliamentary side.
Some Puritans thought they were fighting for God, and there’s no doubt that
many among them felt they were defending religious liberty, a big motivator for
them. Cromwell always avoided using religion as a justification for war. But he and
his supporters felt it legitimate to fight a ruler breaking the law. Irish
Catholics in particular suffered badly in the so called ‘second civil war’.
Legacy
The results of the conflict? There are so many it’s hard to list them, but one or two stand out. In 1649, Parliament, worried about clerical supremacy and the threat of a Scottish veto, told the Scots they were free to go their own way. Scotland’s Covenanters had wanted union with England but the country then backed Charles’ son as new king of the whole of England, Scotland and Ireland. In 1651 Cromwell defeated a Scots’ Royalist army at Worcester before invading Scotland itself. To avoid having to occupy that country England agreed reluctantly, and contrary to modern perceptions, to unite the two. The first Scottish MPs entered the Westminster Parliament in 1654.
Finally after 11 years of the Commonwealth and Protectorate under Cromwell, with spells of army rule and the closing of Parliament, factional strife led to a fear of anarchy. Against this background General Monck contacted Charles, the Stuart heir in Holland, inviting him back as king. The terms were public. So in 1660 the Stuart Monarchy was restored.
So was this after all a defeat for Parliament? Not really. The Restoration put a king back on the throne, but it was only with parliamentary consent. This was the basis of the constitutional monarchy the war had been fought over. The father had refused all compromise, but the son seemed to accept the change. And while it took 1688’s ‘Glorious Revolution’ to enshrine the principles in law via the Bill of Rights and later Act of Settlement, from the Restoration onward it would prove hard to sustain any return to authoritarian monarchy.
No comments:
Post a Comment