• 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)

    Despite it's efficiency Barebones did not win Cromwell much support from the conservatives, nor the army. Eventually, Cromwell decided to dissolve Barebones. Cromwell was later made Protector. Two Protectorate parliaments followed, both of which frustrated Cromwell and he closed them both down.

  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?

    After the war, Cromwell told parliament-"This is the hand of God, and to Him alone belongs the glory", once again this shows us that Cromwell was very Godly. It was a remarkable achievement for a man who probably had no military experience before 1642.

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

    (Paul Christianson, 'The causes of the English Revolution: a Reappraisal', 1976) Throughout the entire period from 1660 to present, not one historian has been prepared to express any enthusiasm or support towards the Major Generals, though a number of scholars have removed themselves from the dominant chorus of disapproval and

  1. 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.

  2. History Independant study - Oliver Cromwell

    Cromwell's use of the army to dissolve ineffective parliaments, to win a civil war and the establishment of the major generals to rule the country made Cromwell, to some extent a military dictator that used the army to run the country.


    It shows what type of king they can expect. Henry executes Cambridge, Scroop and Gray as they were not only plotting to kill Henry but tried to ruin everyone in England. This shows Henry isn't afraid to take difficult decisions as they were his friends but executed them for his country.

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

    choir', who had organised tactics, and that they were led by Peter Wentworth. Thus they believe that the relationship was one of "conflict and contest". This view is backed up by a number of events that occurred in this particular parliament, including that Elizabeth forbade further discussion of succession.

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