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

Was it the weaknesses of the Royalists or the strength of their opponents which best explains the outcome of the first Civil War by 1646

Extracts from this document...


Was it the weaknesses of the Royalists or the strength of their opponents which best explains the outcome of the first Civil War by 1646? When a country is plunged into Civil War the effects are cataclysmic, brother fighting brother. This intensifies when religion is involved, Because it takes men's beliefs and puts drive and anguish behind them, claiming the other side is something, based on acts that the enemy has already committed, which is a powerful tool, this form of propaganda can inflict a damaging blow to the war efforts of both sides. A war of words is one thing, but truly to win or lose a war it is based on many things, but the key is leadership, or lack of it, and could this sway an entire battle? And is it Possible that each battle was just a piece in the puzzle of Charles grand plan to win the war, but inevitably lost it. Rally the troops! Leadership lost the civil war! Throughout the entirety of the war many battles, were fought , Edge Hill (first in 1642) for example, was a strategic challenge. ...read more.


This army was proposed in February 1645, and began to come into being in April 1645. Conscription was necessary to make up the numbers envisaged, although this was for a small percentage of the army. Cromwell's iron grip couldn't be awe inspiring enough to turn a mob of 22,000 troops into a an elite fighting force, surely this has to be a propaganda ploy, yes Cromwell did retrain the cavalry and his influence spreads across the rest of the army, But this reform and Cromwell's tight grip on his troops had a good effect, strict leadership though pain of death and punishment of ungodly acts(though heavy handed)went to a good effect. Cromwell was an MP even though they didn't want MPS in command of the Army, they wanted commanders with actual talent instead of a aristocrats, with no talent at all, Cromwell even though he was part of government, he did show tactical awareness Cromwell was promoted to Colonel in February 1643. This gave him the authority to recruit and train his own regiment. He insisted on strict discipline, which then allowed his troops to reform after a charge on the battlefield. In 1644, Cromwell was promoted to Lieutenant-General, second-in-command in Manchester's northern army. ...read more.


In Conclusion Charles's leadership and his generals were the main failure of the First Civil War, Charles chose commanders that could benefit him, or where already part of his court, he didn't actually think for once, to win a war you had to be tactically sound, Cromwell and Fairfax based on there command traits could wipe the floor with Charles I, at least they were professional soldiers, Charles's Divine right was his failure, it clouded his judgement making him arrogant, making him king, by birth not, war. Cromwell and Fairfax could lead, they were soldiers, Charles I was just a King with only experience in spending money for himself. Charles arrogant ideas were his downfall, his passion for his divine right to rule the country, was just an ego out of control, even though he showed little skill in tactics, he was no match for the reformed Parliamentarian force of Fairfax and Cromwell, Professional soldiers Charles was fighting for power, the Parliamentarians were fighting for what they stood for, the people. Both sides claimed they were fighting for god, but the more godly cause won, The Parliamentarians. 2000 words. ?? ?? ?? ?? ...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

    Did Oliver Cromwell achieve his objectives from 1642 to 1658?

    5 star(s)

    Naturally this won conservative approval. As a whole Cromwell's goal of having a legitimate and traditional government was never realised due to his attempts of balancing the conflicting aims he had. The whole time Cromwell knew his power relied on the army being with him, not against.

  2. Oliver Cromwell - Hero or Villain?

    This was because Ireland was the backdoor to England. Also, Irelands land was fit and Fertile, which was perfect for the English people of We could have called Oliver Cromwell a hero at this stage, for he was only protecting England's interests. I mean-That's what the public wanted-right? However, we could also argue, that he went too far, when

  1. Was Oliver Cromwell a hero or a villain?

    Cromwell consistently attributed his military success to God's will. Historians point to his personal courage and skill, to his care in training and equipping his men and to the tight discipline he imposed both on and off the battlefield. Cromwell was strict and stern, but his newly trained, hand picked cavalry, the Ironsides, won battles and finally the war.

  2. "Conflict and Contest" or "Cooperation and consent," which phrase best sums up Elizabeth I's ...

    However there is also evidence that does not support this view such as Elizabeth arrested the secretary William Davison and sends him to the tower, for dispatching the death Warrant without her permission, showing that there was conflict. It is this evidence that led to the development of the Post - Revisionist view.

  1. The roles and leadership of Charles Stuart and John Pym in the English Civil ...

    So Pym had the right idea about getting local support, and this is proof of his tactical genius. At the same time, while Charles failed to maintain control over his followers, Pym worked to secure the co-operation of the war and peace groups in Parliament.


    Henry takes his responsibilities seriously for his country. Thirdly, in the scripts of Henry V it shows Henry as a religious man, which leads me to believe he isn't a war criminal. To show that Henry is religious, Shakespeare uses constant references to God in his speeches throughout the play.

  1. An unmitigated disaster. How valid is this assessment of Oliver Cromwells experiment with the ...

    C. Wood, Nottinghamshire in the Civil War (Oxford, 1937)) Many believed that that hostility shown towards the Major Generals was due to the involvement of the army within politics. Godfrey Davies argued in the 1950s that, while their rule had been too short lived to have a permanent effect on the morality of the English state it had 'lasted

  2. Was it the weaknesses of the Royalists or the strength of their opponents which ...

    The New Model Army was raised partly from among veteran soldiers who already had deeply-held Puritan religious convictions, and partly from conscripts who brought with them many commonly-held beliefs about religion or society. Its common soldiers therefore held and expressed dissenting or radical views unique to any English army.

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