• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

The roles and leadership of Charles Stuart and John Pym in the English Civil War from August 1642 to December 1643

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

The roles and leadership of Charles Stuart and John Pym in the English Civil War from August 1642 to December 1643. On August the 2nd 1642 King Charles the 1st raised his standard at Nottingham. The English Civil War had begun and it lasted from 1642 until the King's execution at the beginning of 1649. One could argue that it was actually two separate Civil wars, fought between the Parliamentarians and the Royalists. The first war beginning in 1642 and ending in 1646 when the King was captured, and then the second from 1647 after the Kings escape, to 1648 when he was again defeated and captured. However this esssay will simply be looking at the years from 1642 to the end of 1643 when Pym died, as a comparison between their roles as leaders can go no further than ones death. What plan to do is compare and contrast the roles of these two men as leaders and decide to what extent John Pym was the reason for Parliament's success and to what extent was the King the reason for Royalist failures. By 1640, John Pym had become the head of a political group who later became known at the Parliamentarians. According to Angela Anderson1, the victory of Parliament was owed much to the "tactical genius of Pym". He was a skilled political tactician who first entered parliament in 1614. He had participated in the Commons' Protestation against James in 1621 for which he was placed under house arrest for five days as a result. He also took part in the attack on the Duke of Buckingham due to his belief that the man was incompetent in the way of foreign policy. The Parliamentarians (although not named that) originated back in the 1620's with a group of Lords and MP's -Lord Saye and Sele, the Earl of Warwick and Sir John Eliot. ...read more.

Middle

This of course was one of Pym's roles as leader of the Moderate group. His success at this, although it didn't unify Parliament (there were still war and peace groups), helped hold Parliament together and lead them in the direction to victory. So parliament had a much tougher start to the war, despite being in London. Although Parliament may have had no less support than the King, the ability to control it and unify it into one strong force was a challenge that they were faced with which the King didn't have. So, as far as sides go, it would appear that the King had a far more organised, larger and unified force against Pym's various committees that were divided into three main groups that all had very different views. As Pym said himself about the Kings and his forces: "the king and his people are obliged to one another in the nearest relations....he is the head, they are the body." Yet using hindsight, we know that Parliament won, despite Charles' initial advantage. So what went wrong for Charles? Did his role or Pym's have any effect in the turn around? Although Charles was the unified leader of a loyal force, he did not keep as tight a control on his commanders as Parliament did on theirs. Angela Anderson10 wrote that in 1643 his commanders began to plunder local counties regardless of whether or not they were loyal or neutral and this severely damaged the local's relations with the royalists. Brian Manning11 explained that "farmers refused to follow their landlords into the royalist camp and offered to pay their rents to parliament instead. The Yeomen and clothiers, and the whole 'middle rank' of people in Somerset, as well as the 'poorer sort', turned to parliament to defend them against the royalist nobility and gentry." Angela Anderson12 believes that this was not so much a fault of the King but simply the need to supply the King's armies with food and other necessities due to the high demands of the army. ...read more.

Conclusion

So it would seem that the King was somewhat to blame for his decision to leave London and nobody but himself can be blamed for his decision to adopt two policies at once, negotiation and war. The King, however many personality problems he had, was not entirely to blame for his military failure in linking up at Oxford as the conflicting aims of his followers were to blame for this. His commanders can also be blamed for plundering the local towns and losing the king his support but in the end it's the kings responsibility, as the leader of a unified force, to maintain tight control over every aspect of his force. This is what Pym did, and this was one of the main differences I found between them. Pym left little room for error where the king did leave room. Pym's tactics were clever and set Parliament up for the future years but what helped Parliament just as much was their strategic geographical position. His ability to convince all of Parliament that the Solemn League and Convenant that he established with the Scots was necessary was a prime example of his political skill and powers of persuasion. He showed cunning in removing Henry Marten to appease the peace party and throughout all this he kept both peace and war groups together. He realised the necessity in having strong relations with the local counties and his financial system, once up and running, was an important factor in supporting the Parliamentarian cause. After reading the countless books I am led to believe he is a great leader and a fine politician and his title bestowed on him by Anderson "Tactical Genius" does him great justice. Despite dieing at the end of 1643, I believe he was the most important man to have opposed Charles and it was his actions in these early years of the war that set Parliament up in the years to come while I believe that it was Charles' mistakes that saved Parliament in the early years. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level British History: Monarchy & Politics section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level British History: Monarchy & Politics essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Who was to blame for the war: Charles I or Parliament.

    4 star(s)

    This, a political cause triggered the anger of Parliament as having no influence annoyed Parliament greatly. Now that Charles had no Parliament to grant him taxes he had to find other resorts to raise money. One method was 'Ship Money'.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Why did Parliament win the English Civil War?

    This was significant as it separated politics from fighting; a combination that had led to defeat for Parliament in the battle of Newbury when the Earl of Manchester had had a separate political agenda. Cromwell's rise to prominence was key in the Parliamentarian victory.

  1. To what extent was Charles 1st responsible for causing the civil war in 1642?

    Another thing that triggered off the Civil War is when Charles tried to arrest the 5 leading MP's. He charged into the House of Commons with approximately 400 soldiers demanding that the 5 leading MP's must be arrested at once, but they had escaped to safety.

  2. Why did Civil war break out in 1642?

    Proof to this is when Charles called Parliament, the short Parliament only lasted for three weeks and then he dissolved it. Other proof is in January 1642 when Charles walked into the House of Commons and tried to arrest five MPs on the spot.

  1. What Was The Main Cause Of The First English Civil War?

    input from any area and this not only isolated many politicians but also this "creative reform" (as referred to by recent historians such as Kevin Sharpe) brought about many mistakes and dubious decision making. One of the most notable was being drawn into war in Scotland - Presbyterians had viciously

  2. Was Charles I responsible for his execution?

    It could be possible that there was a minority of supporters for the King because they believed in Divine Right as well. The issue of the monarchy's popularity is quite important. If the monarchy was not popular in Charles' reign then it could have been that Parliament had to execute Charles because that's what the people wanted.

  1. Was Charles I Trying to Establish Royal Absolutism during his Personal Rule?

    At the start of his reign, foreign ships had stopped observing the Dominion of the Seas when they saw an English warship when travelling up the Channel, and this was humiliating for England. All revenue raised from Ship Money was spent on the navy, and fine and powerful ships could be built such as the Sovereign of the Seas.

  2. english civil war

    He ruled with parliament for 11 years. Charles made a very significant but also unnecessary drastic decision, which would change everything. Although it did this was a temporary action, and nowadays parliament rules our country. In 1629 Charles was officially independent.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work