The First English Civil War

Authors Avatar

First English Civil War

The First English Civil War (1642–1646) was the first of three wars, known as the English Civil War (or "Wars"). "The English Civil War" refers to the series of armed conflicts and political machinations which took place between Parliamentarians and Royalists from 1642 until 1652, and includes the Second English Civil War (1648–1649) and the Third English Civil War (1649–1651).

Overview


"The English Civil War" (1642–51), is a generic name for the civil wars in England and the Scottish Civil War, which began with the raising of Charles I's standard at Nottingham on August 22, 1642, and ended at the Battle of Worcester fought on September 3, 1651. There was some continued organised Royalist resistance in Scotland which lasted until the surrender of Dunnottar Castle to Parliament's troops in May 1652, but this resistance is not usually included as part of the English Civil War. It is common to classify the English Civil War into three parts:

The First English Civil War of 1642–1646
The Second English Civil War of 1648–1649
The Third English Civil War of 1649–1651.


During most of this time, the Irish Confederate Wars, another civil war, was raging in Ireland; it started with the Irish Rebellion of 1641, and ended with the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland. Its incidents had little or no direct connection with those of the English Civil War, but as the wars were inextricably mixed with, and formed part of a linked series of conflicts and civil wars between 1639 and 1652 in the kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland (which at that time shared a monarch, but were distinct countries in political organisation), these linked conflicts are also known as the Wars of the Three Kingdoms by some recent historians, aiming to have a unified overview, rather than treating parts of the other conflicts, as a background to the English Civil War.

It is impossible rightly to understand the events of this most national of all English wars without some knowledge of the motive forces on both sides. On the side of the King were enlisted:

The deep-seated loyalty which was the result of two centuries of effective royal protection;
the pure cavalier spirit, foreshadowing the courtier era of Charles II, but still strongly tinged with the old feudal indiscipline;
the militarism of an expert soldier nobility, well represented by Prince Rupert; and lastly
a widespread mistrust of extreme Puritanism, which appeared unreasonable to the Viscount Falkland and other philosophic statesmen, and intolerable to every other class of Royalists.
The foot of the Royal armies was animated, in the main, by the first and last of these motives. In the eyes of the sturdy rustics who followed their squires to the war, the enemy were rebels and fanatics. To the cavalry, which was composed largely of the higher social orders, the rebels were, in addition, bourgeois, while the soldiers of fortune from the German wars felt all the regulars' contempt for citizen militia. Thus, in the first episodes of the First Civil War, moral superiority tended to be on the side of the King.

On the other side, the causes of the quarrel were primarily and apparently political, ultimately and really religious, and thus the elements of resistance in Parliament and the nation were at first confused, and, later, strong and direct. Democracy, moderate republicanism, and the simple desire for constitutional guarantees could hardly make head of themselves against the various forces of royalism, for the most moderate men of either party were sufficiently in sympathy to admit compromise. But the backbone of resistance was the Puritan element, and this waging war at first with the rest on the political issue, soon (as the Royalists anticipated) brought the religious issue to the front.

The Presbyterian system, even more rigid than that of the Archbishop of Canterbury, William Laud, and the other bishops, whom no man on either side save Charles himself supported, was destined to be supplanted by the Independents, and their ideal of free conscience. But for a generation before the war broke out, the system had disciplined and trained the middle classes of the nation (who furnished the bulk of the rebel infantry, and later, of the cavalry also) to centre their will on the attainment of their ideals. The ideals changed during the struggle, but not the capacity for striving for them, and the men capable of the effort finally came to the front, and imposed their ideals on the rest by the force of their trained wills.

Material force was, throughout, on the side of the Parliamentary party. They controlled the navy, the nucleus of an army which was in the process of being organised for the Irish war, and nearly all the financial resources of the country. They had the sympathies of most of the large towns, where the trained bands, drilled once a month, provided cadres for new regiments. Further, by recognising the inevitable, they gained a start in war preparations which they never lost.

The Earl of Warwick, the Earl of Essex and the Earl of Manchester, and other nobles and gentry of their party, possessed great wealth and territorial influence. Charles, on the other hand, although he could by means of impressment and the Lords-Lieutenant raise men without authority from Parliament, could not raise taxes to support them. He was therefore dependent on the financial support of his chief adherents, such as the Earl of Newcastle and the Earl of Derby.

Both parties raised men when and where they could, each claiming that the law was on its side, for England was already a law-abiding nation and acting in virtue of legal instruments. These were, on the side of the Parliament, its own recent "Militia Ordinance", on that of the King, the old-fashioned "Commissions of Array".

In Cornwall, the Royalist leader, Sir Ralph Hopton, indicted the enemy before the grand jury of the county as disturbers of the peace, and had the posse comitatus called out to expel them. The local forces, in fact, were everywhere employed by whichever side could, by producing valid written authority, induce them to assemble.

The Royalist and Parliamentarian armies

This thread of local feeling and respect for the laws runs through the earlier operations of both sides, almost irrespective of the main principles at stake. Many a promising scheme failed because of the reluctance of the militiamen to serve beyond the limits of their own county. As the offensive lay with the King, his cause naturally suffered from this far more than that of the enemy.

But the real spirit of the struggle was very different. Anything which tended to prolong the struggle, or seemed like want of energy and avoidance of a decision, was bitterly resented by the men of both sides. They had their hearts in the quarrel, and had not as yet learned by the severe lesson of Edgehill that raw armies cannot bring wars to a speedy issue. In France and Germany, the prolongation of a war meant continued employment for the soldiers, but in England:

"we never encamped or entrenched... or lay fenced with rivers or defiles. Here were no leaguers in the field, as at the story of Nuremberg, 'neither had our soldiers any tents, or what they call heavy baggage.' Twas the general maxim of the war: Where is the enemy? Let us go and fight them. Or... if the enemy was coming... Why, what should be done! Draw out into the fields and fight them."
This passage from the Memoirs of a Cavalier [1], ascribed to Daniel Defoe, though not contemporary evidence, is an admirable summary of the character of the Civil War. Even when in the end a regular professional army developed, the original decision-compelling spirit permeated the whole organisation as was seen when pitched against regular professional continental troops the Battle of the Dunes during the Interregnum.

From the first, the professional soldiers of fortune, be their advice good or bad, were looked upon with suspicion. Nearly all those Englishmen who loved war for its own sake were too closely concerned for the welfare of their country to attempt the methods of the Thirty Years' War in England. The formal organisation of both armies was based on the Swedish model, which had become the pattern of Europe after the victories of Gustavus Adolphus. It gave better scope for the morale of the individual than the old-fashioned Spanish and Dutch formations, in which the man in the ranks was a highly finished automaton.

Campaign of 1642

When the King raised his standard at Nottingham on 22 August 1642, war was already in progress on a small scale in many districts; each side endeavouring to secure, or to deny to the enemy, fortified country-houses, territory, and above all arms and money. Peace negotiations went on in the midst of these minor events, until there came from the Parliament an ultimatum, so aggressive as to fix the war-like purpose of the still vacillating court at Nottingham, and in the country at large, to convert many thousands of waverers to active Royalism.

Ere long, Charles who had hitherto had fewer than 1,500 men, was at the head of an army which, though very deficient in arms and equipment, was not greatly inferior in numbers or enthusiasm to that of Parliament. The latter (20,000 strong, exclusive of detachments) was organised during July, August, and September about London, and moved from there to Northampton under the command of Lord Essex.

At this moment, the military situation was as follows: the Marquess of Hertford in South Wales, Hopton in Cornwall, and the young Earl of Derby in Lancashire, and small parties in almost every county of the west and the midlands, were in arms for the King. North of the Tees, Newcastle, a great territorial magnate, was raising troops and supplies for the King, while Queen Henrietta Maria was busy in Holland, arranging for the importation of war material and money. In Yorkshire, opinion was divided, the royal cause being strongest in York and the North Riding, that of the Parliamentary party, in the clothing towns of the West Riding, and also in the important seaport of Hull.

The Yorkshire gentry made an attempt to neutralise the county, but a local struggle soon began, and Newcastle thereupon prepared to invade Yorkshire. The whole of the south and east, as well as parts of the Midlands and the west, and the important towns of Bristol and Gloucester, were on the side of the Parliament. A small Royalist force was compelled to evacuate Oxford on 10 September.

Join now!

On 13 September, the main campaign opened. The King, in order to find recruits amongst his sympathisers and arms in the armouries of the Derbyshire and Staffordshire, trained bands and also, to be in touch with his disciplined regiments in Ireland by way of Chester, moved westward to Shrewsbury. Essex followed suit by marching his army from Northampton to Worcester. Near the last-named town, a sharp cavalry engagement, Powick Bridge, took place on 23 September between the advanced cavalry of Essex's army, and a force under Prince Rupert, which was engaged in protecting the retirement of the Oxford detachment. The ...

This is a preview of the whole essay