• 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


    Also Henry says to the French ambassador, who was sent to England with an insulting gift of tennis balls, that "we are no tyrant but Christian king". This shows he is religious in his own eyes. In addition to this, Henry asks two priests, Canterbury and Ely to explain the

  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.

  1. History Independant study - Oliver Cromwell

    The historian Richard Wilkinson suggests 'he (Cromwell) knocked down parliaments in a way no Stuart ever attempted. Levellers and Royalists were suppressed and his power rested on the new model army. He was a Military dictator.'19 The tone of Wilkinson's description is very negative however the primary facts of his

  2. Oliver Cromwell - Hero or Villain?

    There was one. The trial lasted for eight days, and Charles I lost. Basically, the king betrayed their trust, and so they felt the need to kill him. Cromwell said that he had tried to avoid division, but he felt that it had to happen.

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

    According to Conrad Russell13 in his book The Crisis of Parliaments Pym's greatest achievement was probably the creation of a financial and administrative machine which, in the long run, would enable parliament to win the war. Here, Russell openly states that Pym's role, more specifically his role in creating the financial system, was a factor in winning the war.

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

    The Revisionist view has developed and Elton believes that that the relationship between the Queen and her parliament was still one of "cooperation and consent". This view is backed up by the fact that Elizabeth agreed to sign the document even though she was reluctant to do so.

  1. Was it Royalist weaknesses or their opponent's strengths that decided the outcome of the ...

    Parliament also used taxes to fund their war effort; however, as the King would not give assent to anything passed in parliament they were forced to pass ordinances in place of acts. As Parliament controlled the ports this prevented King Charles from generating income and war funds through customs duties or trade.

  2. Was Oliver Cromwell a hero or a villain?

    genius and had well disciplined men: 'I would rather have a plain-coated captain who know what he is fighting for, and loves what he knows, than a rich gentleman.' And this quote is taken from a newspaper published by Parliament-'If a man swears, he pays 12 pence.

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