However, The whole blame for these occurrences cannot rest solely on the king. The commanders of his forces showed selfishness and were reluctant in grouping with neighbouring forces, making a very difficult situation for Charles to deal with. He did replace some early commanders in mid 1643, like Marquess of Hertford with more strategic and effective leaders such as Rupert and Maurice. This shows that the king wasn’t completely useless as some historians may suggest, but while dealing with all of his command problem he failed to press important advantages he had in order to win more support and hinder the parliamentarian growth.
He also failed to resolve the feud between the leading members of the council of war, Digby and Rupert causing delays in military advancements. Due to his split armies, and their scattered appearance on a map, it hindered any chance of quick victory in some areas. Anderson (1995) states “At certain times royalist strategy lacked direction, and in 1643 the failure of the northern and western armies to link up with Charles at Oxford destroyed what was probably the king’s best chance of outright victory.” I agree with her here as it was often the case that the scattered Royalist forces did not join to form a lager more effective combined force. With hindsight, perhaps we could say that if Charles had grouped what forces he had at the beginning of the war, he could have flattened the parliamentarian force even before it became such a huge threat. This outlines a major weakness of the Royalist cause: A leader with a lack of control of his own forces.
The Parliamentarian cause differed greatly to the Royalists in the way it operated throughout the war. The king still thought it was necessary to abide by the laws and constitution, meaning he was always restricted to what actions he could take. The Parliamentarians, however, were not. As Lord Wharton said in 1643, From Orange Pamphlet (p75) “They [Parliament] were not tied to a law, for these were times of necessity and imminent danger.” This meant that the parliamentarian cause could go to any length to defeat their opponents. This gave them powers, such as creating ‘The New Model Army’, which was one of the main strengths for their cause. Many historians would argue that this army was only successful for it’s sheer numbers, but this alone did not bring about the victories it produced. It had an excellent structure and organisation that were far superior to the Royalist forces. Firstly, men were paid to fight for the first time in the war, or for the most part of it. This was unlike the Royalist structure that relied on the Gentry leaders to control his own army and supply its needs. Paying men to fight was expensive, however, and took a lot of wealth out of the Parliamentarian cause. A price that the Royalists never had to pay due to their self-supportive force.
The Leadership of the Parliamentarians was Superior in that it promoted on merit, almost guaranteeing effective leaders or strategists of war could make the right decisions and do a better job than a rich, high class noble with no such skills as in the Royalist structure. The Parliamentarians went so far as to announce no MP was to be in command of forces. They did make exception with Oliver Cromwell, as he had proved already his ability on the field. This isn’t a weakness to the Royalists however, by not adopting these tactics. I feel that if they did so, it would cause uproar in the forces ranks and leaders. The Royalists had many High-class citizens supporting it, and the rich with handed down estates. These folk already had power due to their status, and if a working class citizen, who was below him in the social structure, took it away from him it would cause much more problems than benefits. The Royalists stuck to their Social chain, thus this method would not be as successful as it was on the Parliamentarians.
Fairfax and Cromwell were examples of the great leadership the Parliamentarians had. They both proved their abilities many times, and were eventually given command of the New Model Army. This force contained soldiers of military talent, and maintained high morale. J.S Morill (1976) States, “The New model army was in fact becoming the only reasonably well-diciplined (because well paid?) Army in the kingdom.” The fact that they had uniforms could also be a cause of its success. Soldiers may have felt a belonging, and pride to wear it. The New Model Army proved successful at Naseby, defeating the main Royalist army in June 1645, and effectively ‘mopped up’ the remaining forces resisting them. This army also gained a lot of support for the Parliamentarians in rural areas. They impressed the countrymen and often gained many soldiers from these areas. They also had a policy of not plundering towns and villages, unlike the Royalists. Instead, they were known to give people food and money in exchange for hospitality and passing. Fairfax wrote “Nothing carries our business with more advantage than keeping our soldiers from doing violences.”
It was possible for the king in 1643 to attempt to gain foreign assistance in Scotland, as they had failed in France due to their participation in the 3 years war. This would have been crucial in gaining a great advantage over his opponents, but instead the parliamentarians were able to gain the support they needed to defeat the king. The Scots proved valuable at Martson Moor in defeating the Royalists in 1644. Finance played an important role for both sides in the war. A strength of parliament had here was the territory it had hold of from the beginning of the war. Their territory included London, the main propaganda centre and held thousands of people who supported them from the start. They used this to their advantage, and set-up a taxation system that proved successful, as it was manageable by the people who paid it, and brought in a lot of wealth that could be used to fund The New Model Army etc. John Pym played a large role here. Besides setting up this scheme, in the war he had utilized the dangers of the military situation to persuade MP’s to turn to radical measures, and held together the Peace and war parties to halt any division within the cause. It was people like Pym who gave the Parliamentarians a great advantage over the Royalists throughout the war. He constructed weekly taxes in London at first, and then spread the scheme further out into their territory, producing a stable and structured income.
Because of their occupation in London, The Parliamentarians launched propaganda throughout the war, aimed at the localised areas and people unsure of their loyalties. Website 1 includes “They were also radical in grounding their arguments in the new ideological tenets of natural rights and of popular sovereignty. Further, they used the printing press to organize and spread their propaganda. Took advantage of emerging media.” Right from the very beginning of the war, Propaganda increased rapidly, in an attempt to gain as much support as they could for their own forces and resources. The first English newspapers were devoted to English affairs; many pamphlets were produced appealing to different interest groups such as the provincial gentry. People who were indecisive looked out for all this propaganda hoping it would help them make up their mind of which side to support. But often all this propaganda served to confuse. They contradicted each other and often made people turn to localism or not to choose a side at all. Lady Sussex wrote, “Both sides promise so fair, that I cannot see what it is they should fight for.” Thus I would say that propaganda was a strength and a weakness to both sides. Parliament, however were more successful at it, basically because they had control of the central propaganda area – London. This propaganda often destroyed Royalist morale, and humiliated the king. The parliamentarian, for example, managed to intercept a collection of papers in which were letter to and from the Irish and the king. They indicated Charles’s Ruthlessness and was a devastating source for their propaganda campaign.
In Conclusion, It was both the Strengths of the Parliamentarians and the weaknesses of the royalists that gave victory to the parliamentarians. I would choose to say that it was more the parliaments strengths, as they had control of London and it’s masses, along with the propaganda centre. Its structure was also more organised, and its leadership was superior to the Royalists. We cannot forget, however, that the Royalists also had many strengths as well as weaknesses. The main cause of the Royalist failure was the king, and his failure to press his advantages at the beginning of the civil war.
