Civil Wars were a primary factor in Parliamentarian victory although the true extent of his role is the subject of debate amongst historians, as I have explored. In interpretation A, Ashley heavily emphasises the role of Cromwell during the battle of Marston Moor, arguing that he was solely responsible for the victory through his strength of command and array of military talents. Some of Ashley’s arguments do strengthen his interpretation. He creates a fairly forceful argument in favour of this view
Oliver Cromwell a leader or tyrant of Britain Oliver Cromwell was a man that was of low birth that rose to the top of society in his time. He was fearless in battle and in politics fighting anything that got in his way. The bull of a man took many bashings and still live for years. To some people Oliver Cromwell was a great leader by bring together the United Kingdom and becoming the Lord Protector of the Commonwealth. These people also thought he was a sincere protect of religion and would make
Charles won many small battles during the English Civil war, but as the war dragged on, many factors became his disadvantage. One important factor was that Parliament allied itself with Oliver Cromwell and the Puritans. From then on, Parliament and Cromwell won two major battles, the Battle of Naseby and Marston Moor. (Hill, p. 95) Ideologically, Cromwell’s New Model Army was more motivated than the King’s army. Defeat
this manner it was crucial that Charles capitalized quickly and decisively upon his early advantage. Unfortunately for him by allowing his army to be drawn into battle at Edgehill he missed the opportunity to do this. However, the door was not shut entirely in the Kings face and most historians agree that were it not for the battle fought for Parliament by the voluntary London Trained Bands at Turnham Green then the king would probably have had an open road to London. As Angela Anderson puts
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. Each of these battles would decide , who had the upper hand, logistic wise and ideologically, Moral
Charles I was born in Fife Scotland on 19 November 1600, being the second son of James VI of Scotland and of Anne of Denmark. He became king because of the death of his brother, Prince Henry, in 1612. He was the second Stuart King of England, in 1625. Charles was reserved, self-righteous and, had a residual stammer. As king he believed in the divine right. He was a linguist and spent a lot on the arts. He had a great collection of Van Dyck's, Rubenss, Raphael's, and Titian's. His expenditure on
The New Model Army and the Civil War In the early years of the civil war, little difference existed between parliament and the king in respects of power and territorial advantage. It could be said that the war was being fought to a desultory standstill. From the commencement of the conflict, the primary objective of Parliament had been simply to avoid defeat by the king. As soon as the problems of the government had resorted to violence, the leaders of Parliament knew that they could not tolerate
The English Civil War The English Civil War was a complicated, intellectual war between the two most powerful forces in England: Parliament and the King. Conflicts between the two powers began when King Charles I dissolved Parliament in 1625 because they would not give him the money he demanded to fund his war against Spain. Parliament, who was lead by John Pym, felt that the King was showing favouritism towards the Roman Catholics, especially since Charles had recently married the Roman Catholic