"Was the ECW a foregone conclusion?" Topic

Okay. I always try to.
point out the areas in which I have very little expertise and this is one of them. So no need to RIP my opinion to shreds if it doesn't conform to yours. It's opinion, nothing more.

That said, I think from about the time the fleet decided to back parliament, Charles' days were numbered. Granted, His Majesty did more to hurt his own cause than any three parliamentary generals, but was there really anything he could have done right at that point that would have made any difference?

Take Ireland seriously early on, and given them concessions to bring in an army? I don't think so. It would have turned what support he did have against him.

France? Spain? Same problem, I think. They were also busy with their own problems at the time.

Court the papacy? I think that ship had sailed by Elizabeth's reign.

Reform the army? Why? His troops were already better than the early roundheads, so don't fix what isn't broken. And by the time the New Model Army came into existence, he had no funds to do it anyway.

But, again, I'm no expert. Looking forward to other's opinions.

Not sure. Politically, certainly. But if Charles were a different person, there wouldn't have been an ECW in the first place.

Militarily, maybe. A chance if he'd pushed harder to march on London after Edgehill. Might not have worked, but it might have. Basically the same argument we get into with the '45 and turning back at Derby. Again, I don't think losing Marston Moor was pre-ordained, much less losing the Marston Moor campaign. Montrose had a long run of luck--but suppose it had held for one more battle? Naseby as fought was long odds. But Charles could certainly have thinned or given up garrisons and given himself better odds. Though maybe there, I'm back to needing Charles I to be someone else. And tilting a major battle or campaign the other way discourages the Parliament, hinders diplomacy and recruitment and limits their resources.

I wouldn't by any means say the Royal cause was doomed from the outset--which is why people keep fighting ECW campaign games, I should think.

It depends on what you mean by a foregone conclusion. The Stuarts did win in the end – Charles II got the throne back. He did this in part by making concessions to his enemies and not really rewarding his friends so well – why bother?, they already supported him.

Had his father had an ounce of pragmatism in his make-up then he could have retained the throne and his head. He would have had to have given up some part of his right to call and dismiss parliament, and his autocratic tax raising powers – but that could have been a "winning draw" for him.

And had Cromwell not tried to set up a dynasty then its feasible that the Commonwealth would have continued and Charles would not have got the throne back.

Bringing in an Irish army – would have strengthened the opposition against him as it would have been tantamount to proving what his enemies said of his plans for the church – similarly with making alliance with any of the Catholic Powers of Europe. What would France or Spain have required in return for their help? And what would his own Generals have thought of such an alliance? Those that had them, had gained their military reputations fighting Spain and The Holy Roman Empire.

One interesting point that has arisen here is, imo, the conflating of Charles I and I I.

The two wars were completely different, and fought by different people. The first was to defeat the tyranny (there were far better examples of tyrants at the time) of the Stuarts with the enlightened rule of an unrestrained parliament.

The second was to defeat the tyranny of Richard Cromwell (ibid and ditto) when parliamentary enlightened rule turned out to be just what every royalist predicted it would.

link

The Stuarts would still be ruling us now if two them hadn't Benn complete and utter idiots. How bad do you have to be for people to invite a foreign king to depose you?

One takes on this I haven't heard.

What if Charles had courted the protestant powers? The Dutch or Swedes, maybe?

Sweden was/would soon be busy on the continent with more pressing matters, but the English and Dutch are fierce rivals over the new world in a very uncertain situation.

If Charles had made concessions to the Dutch? Would that have mattered?

Or, even if it would have, would it also have required Charles to be someone other than himself?

Also, its always important to remember that France of this period isn't exactly a Catholic power. Catholic-ish-provided-His-Holiness-doesn't-get-too-uppity would be a little more accurate.

The old saw that France was the center of the Hapsburg empire was quite accurate, and Richelieu and his forebears were well aware of it.

The two wars were completely different

It's a matter of opinion – I see a continuum from the Bishops Wars to the Restoration.

A bit like WWII being an almost certainty to occur because of how WWI was "resolved". That whole period 1914 to 1945 is one interlinked series of wars with the Great War and WWII being the peaks of activity.

Or you can view WWI, Japan's invasion of China, SCW, Italy in North Africa, annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia, and WWII as a series of completely unconnected conflicts.

It's just a different way of looking at things.

"The second was to defeat the tyranny of Richard Cromwell (ibid and ditto) when parliamentary enlightened rule turned out to be just what every royalist predicted it would."

Richard Cromwell was removed by radicals in the army. The more moderate wing of the army. Monck and others led the moderates and the radicals melted away before any fighting. Charles was invited back. There was no war to remove Richard.

I concur with Swampster, with the minor exception of Lambert's republican 'counter coup' which mostly fizzled out.

Could the Royalists have won in the First Civil War? Yes, I think so, although Parliament held some powerful cards – London, cash, the fleet etc.

Gloucester and Hull were key to Parliament holding on in the West and the North and both were held by men who later joined the Royalists, Massey and the Hothams (though Hotham got executed for his troubles).

Several of the main battles could have turned out better for the Royalists quite easily. 1st Newbury could have ended in defeat for the Parls if the Rs had enough gunpowder. Marston Moor could have gone the other way if Byron's wing didn't charge over a ditch. Even Naseby could have been a Royalist victory if Goring had done what he was told and brought the bulk of the 'old horse' back to the Kings army.

Add to that several Royalist rebellions in Parliamentary territory, Kings Lynn, Kent, etc.

What if Charles had courted the protestant powers? The Dutch or Swedes, maybe?

Sweden was/would soon be busy on the continent with more pressing matters, but the English and Dutch are fierce rivals over the new world in a very uncertain situation.

Sweden was involved in the Thirty Years War until 1648, and The United Provinces were similarly involved in their own 80 Years War with the Spain. Thus, there may have been some limitations on their side.

Not sure how bringing in a lot of continental allies or mercenaries would have been perceived by the people at large.

Then there is the little issue of the neighbouring protestant Scotland, where Charles also happened to hold the crown. Unfortunately, he also managed to handle relationships with his Scottish subjects rather poorly, leading to the fiasco of Bishop's Wars.

I have to admit to never having thought of the Stuarts as being anything other than conspicuously unsuccessful. The Stuart regime of course doesn't finish with Charles II and I'd suggest to bookend the effects of the ECW as the restoration and call it a royalist success is questionable at least. Charles I was a disaster for the institution of monarchy even if you want to believe in it and I'd submit Charles II's only claim to fame was that he managed to retain his crown. The only significant benefits were gained after James II abandoned his kingdom (twice) with the coronation of Mary but that was mainly down to William's appearance and his reforms. Then the whole sorry lot finally fizzled out with the luckless Anne. The whole chapter was about the rise of Parliament.
As for inevitability, I'd say like the AWI – the genie was out of the bottle even if this monarch or that and their followers didn't realise it at the time.

Swampster

I was just starting a new third shift job last night and can scarcely discern my own writings on the subject of Richard Cromwell. You are right. Still trying to figure out what I was trying to get across.

It certainly was nothing like how I'm reading it now???

Gorgrat, I thought you were meaning to type Oliver rather than Richard Cromwell, and making a reasonable point about the Second Civil War--at which time young Charles was officially Charles II. How did Churchill put it? "The story of the Second Civil War is simple: Scots and English, Navy and Army, Parliament and Royalists against the New Model Army. The New Model Army beat the lot." Quoting from memory, but I think I'm pretty close.

Couldn't have put it better.

The thing to remember about the military side of the equation is that England as an early modern state didn't have the infrastructure to support armies for a lengthy civil war. Supplies of food, powder, shot and cash not to mention replacement horses were an issue. The only way to keep an army in the field was to hold those areas where those essentials could be obtained. That required maintaining garrisons to collect (steal or otherwise acquire) supplies and protect supply lines. Charles' problem was that he had already alienated the very people who provided the bulk of those things. London and Hull for arms and ammunition, East Anglia for food all sided with Parliament. The Royalists couldn't consolidate all their garrisons without loosing control of the resources needed to keep a consolidated army in the field.

Charles needed to maintain the support of his richest supporters as he needed their financial and manpower resources. All he had to offer in return were titles and military commands so he didn't always have the best men for the job in the command positions. The same issue bedevilled his advisory council. His position was handicapped from the start.

Could he have done better with the cards he was dealt? I think the answer is probably yes. Could he have won and maintained the pre war state of affairs, definitely not. Was he capable of accepting the need to accept changes? No. Ultimately he lost the war and his life because he couldn't accept the need to accept a new status quo. To have won the war Charles needed to have dealt with the politics of the 1620s and 1630s so that he didn't start the war with the best sources of supplies in the pocket of Parliament. That would have allowed different strategies, always assuming he was capable of of changing strategy.