"Lord Essex?" Topic

I am reading Wedgwoods book, The King's War 1641-1647. Excellent book and a real page turner. And this is the first time I have read about the ECW from start to finish. So I am currently in 1644 and I am trying to figure out Lord Essex. The King abandoned a couple of towns south of Oxford and suddenly, both Essex and Waller are after him. The King moves north with his cavalry while leaving his infantry in Oxford.

This is a superb opportunity to finish off the King or at the least take Oxford. Yet Essex decides to split up the armies. He leaves Waller to tail the King while Essex moves to the southwest to relieve a siege of Lyme. What is he thinking????

So what is the consensus on Essex's performance in 44 and for the war in general? I am not too impressed so far but maybe I am not aware of all the factors in play.

Essex was a solid if cautious commander. He knew that the key was to avoid loosing the war. Victory could come from negotiation but only if Parliament was still able to threaten military action. He was schooled in the Dutch school of warfare which was inherently cautious which reenHi David, there is no report at this stage , I discussed with the client that I would need to review what I was given and then advice further. Some of which was outside scope of my expertise so I needed to get Harmer involved. I can send meeting notes and what I have done so far but it won't be until next week as I am on a course and away.
I don't have my work laptop with me.

Sorry I can't help further.

Alternatively u may wish to go and see the client if it is pressing.

They are a cleaning company with issues relating to use if umbrella, agencies and application of cat regs as well as status.

Sorry I can't help further reenforced those traits in him.

He suffers from comparisons with the more aggressive later commanders. He did what was needed in the early years of the war .

Eh?.

Wow, the bug really hit Elenderil didn't it.

Oh my. That did not work well now did it!

Would a lack of the kings troop dispositions at the time be the issue? After all we are reading these articles knowing what happened, where everyone went and how many of what type was stationed where. If you don't have this information or if the information oyu do have in unreliable the decision is much harder to make.

The Lostwithiel campaign and 2nd Newbury 1644 was not a good year for the Earl of Essex.

From Essex's perspective, the Kings forces were scattered with Maurice in the SW besieging Lyme, Rupurt in Lancashire but heading to relieve York shortly, Kings Infantry in Oxford and King + Kings Cavalry heading NW from Oxford.

So Essex opportunity was that he could use his central position north of Oxford, combined with superior numbers, to take out the King's forces piecemeal. Essex's greatest danger was if the King managed to reunite his forces before Essex could destroy the separate pieces of the King's forces.

The worse thing he could have done was split his forces which not only forfeited opportunity but increased the chance of disaster. Of course, not only did he split his forces, he then allowed himself to be trapped and beseiged in the SW peninsula.

He may have been a competent leader and battlefield commander but his mistakes in 44 seem to indicate he was out of his depth operationally.

Plus Essex and Waller really didn't get on terribly well. Apparently Essex split forces after a series of bitter arguments with Waller. Lord Robartes, serving under Essex, was convinced that the Cornish would support Parliament ( coincidentally his estates were in Cornwall and I imagine rent collection had proven tricky), and tempted Essex with the prospect of conquering the West where Waller had failed previously.

Waller and Essex could have co-operated to defeat the Kings Oxford army

-----Apparently Essex split forces after a series of bitter arguments with Waller. ------

What were the arguments about? If the argument was on strategy and whether to go after the king or not, then someone must have been making an argument similiar to the above. If someone pointed out his advantages and he ignored them, then that would make his actions even more inexcuseable.

Hmm not sure what happened with my original post. Bill if you see this could you edit it for me as I can't do so any more.