You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
When Charles I raised his standard at Nottingham on 22 August 1642 he began the most destructive conflict in early modern English history. For the first time an English king and his Parliament committed themselves to settling their quarrel by battle, and the fighting that followed over the next four years divided counties, towns and families, wrecked local economies, and killed — in proportion to population — a higher share of the English people than the First World War would three centuries later. Yet the war was not the mere playing-out of an inevitable verdict. In August 1642 the two sides were surprisingly evenly matched, neither had an army worthy of the name, and most observers expected a single decisive engagement to settle everything. That it did not, and that Parliament in the end won comprehensively, is the problem this lesson sets out to explain.
The previous lesson traced the political collapse of 1640–42 — the recall of Parliament, the reforming consensus of the Long Parliament, its fracture over the Grand Remonstrance, and the descent into war through the Irish Rebellion and the failed arrest of the Five Members. This lesson picks up where that story ends and follows the military struggle itself: the resources and geography that each side commanded at the outset; the indecisive opening campaign that culminated at Edgehill; the slow transformation of Parliament's war effort through the Eastern Association and, decisively, the creation of the New Model Army; the two great battles — Marston Moor in 1644 and Naseby in 1645 — that broke the king's cause; and the fundamental question of why Parliament won. The lesson closes by pressing beyond the campaigns to the human experience of the war — allegiance, neutralism, and the calamity that the fighting represented for most of those who lived through it.
The organising question is whether Parliament won the first Civil War because of superior resources — the wealth of London and the south-east, control of the navy, the customs revenue, and the willingness to tax that a long war demanded — or because of superior organisation, above all the professionalisation of its armies in the New Model. The two are related but distinct: resources are a precondition, but resources badly organised (as Parliament's were until 1645) win nothing. Keep the question in view throughout, because the answer bears directly on how we read the whole conflict: a war won by sheer weight of money looks structurally foreordained, while a war won by the belated invention of a professional army looks contingent on decisions that men made and might not have made.
By the end of this lesson you will be able to:
This lesson belongs to OCR H505 Unit Y108 (British period study and enquiry): England 1603–1660 — The Early Stuarts and the Origins of the English Civil War. Within our own teaching sequence it is the pivot between the "origins" half of the unit and the revolutionary settlement that follows: the war is the engine that turns a constitutional crisis into the regicide and republic of the later lessons. We treat the military conflict of 1642–46 as a distinct lesson, separated from the political breakdown that precedes it and the search for settlement that follows, because the conduct of the war — how it was fought, financed and won — is a genuinely different analytical problem from the causes of the war, and deserves its own concentrated treatment. This is our pedagogical arrangement, not a transcription of the specification's ordering. (Refer to the official OCR specification for exact wording.)
Keep asking, throughout, what actually won the war — money, or the organisation of money into professional force — and how far the outcome was foreordained. Those questions are the analytical spine of the lesson.
The first task in analysing the war is to understand what each side actually brought to it, because the eventual outcome is written in the distribution of resources — though not in a way that made it inevitable. In August 1642 the division of the kingdom was neither clean nor obviously decisive; both sides drew support from every region and every social rank, and the map of allegiance was blurred by neutralism and by local rivalries. But underlying the confusion lay a structural imbalance in the sinews of war.
| Royalists (Cavaliers) | Parliamentarians (Roundheads) |
|---|---|
| Defended the king's prerogative and the established episcopal Church, drawing on traditional loyalty and the service of much of the nobility | Sought parliamentary control of the militia, ministers, and further religious reform, drawing on the "godly" and the commercial classes |
| Strongest in the north, west, and Wales — poorer, more pastoral, less populous regions | Strongest in the south-east, East Anglia, London, and the ports — wealthier, more populous, and commercially dynamic |
| Superior cavalry at the outset, led by the dashing Prince Rupert of the Rhine, the king's nephew and an experienced Continental soldier | Controlled the Royal Navy, which had declared for Parliament — denying the king easy foreign supply and securing Parliament's ports and trade |
| Relied on aristocratic loyalty, personal followings, and traditional forms of military service | Controlled the realm's richest tax base and, crucially, was willing to build a systematic machinery of taxation to fund the war |
The deeper Parliamentary advantages — the capital, the navy, the customs, and above all the willingness to tax — meant that in a long war the side able to sustain armies would prevail. London alone was decisive: the largest city in the kingdom by an order of magnitude, it supplied money, manpower, munitions, and a printing industry that made it the propaganda capital of the war. Control of the navy denied Charles the easy import of foreign arms and men, and choked Royalist trade. And Parliament's readiness to tax — through the assessment (a regular, quota-based property levy far more efficient than the old subsidies) and the excise (a duty on goods, introduced from 1643) — gave it a financial machine the king could never match. Charles, by contrast, depended on the personal generosity of loyalists, the melting-down of college plate, and improvised local levies. The imbalance did not guarantee victory, but it meant that time favoured Parliament: the longer the war lasted, the more Parliament's structural advantages would tell — provided it could organise them into effective armies, which for three years it conspicuously failed to do.
The war's first campaign was a race for advantage that ended in a bloody draw. Charles established his wartime capital at Oxford and, having gathered an army in the Royalist heartlands of the north and west, marched on London — the seizure of which might have ended the war at a stroke. Parliament's army, under the cautious Earl of Essex, moved to intercept him. The two forces collided at Edgehill in Warwickshire on 23 October 1642, in the first pitched battle fought on English soil in living memory.
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| The armies | Roughly equal in size (perhaps 13,000–15,000 each), both largely untrained; Essex commanded for Parliament, the king in nominal command for the Royalists with Prince Rupert leading the horse |
| The fighting | Rupert's cavalry charge swept Parliament's horse from the field — but, undisciplined, pursued the fugitives for miles and plundered the baggage train rather than turning back to complete the victory; the infantry struggle was fierce and inconclusive |
| The outcome | Tactically indecisive; the Royalists held the field at nightfall, but neither side had destroyed the other. Essex withdrew towards Warwick, leaving the road to London open |
| The aftermath | Charles advanced towards London but was halted at Turnham Green (November 1642), where the capital's trained bands turned out in force; he fell back on Oxford, and the chance of a quick victory was gone |
Edgehill is analytically important less for its result than for what it revealed. First, it showed that the war would not be won at a stroke: two amateur armies had fought each other to a standstill, and a long war now loomed — which, as we have seen, favoured Parliament's resources. Second, it exposed the flaw that would dog the Royalist cause throughout: Rupert's cavalry was superb in the charge but impossible to rally, so that a decisive advantage on one wing was repeatedly thrown away in undisciplined pursuit. The lesson — that cavalry which could charge, halt, and charge again would be worth far more than cavalry that merely charged — was one that Oliver Cromwell, present in a minor capacity, would take to heart. Third, the failure to press on to London after Edgehill, and the check at Turnham Green, meant Charles never again came so close to the capital: the one target whose capture might have won him the war slipped permanently out of reach.
The two years after Edgehill were a confused, sprawling struggle across the whole kingdom, with local advantages won and lost and no clear direction. In 1643 the Royalists arguably had the better of it, winning victories in the north and west; but Parliament held London and the south-east, and the war settled into the attritional pattern that its resources were built to win. Two developments in this period reshaped the conflict decisively.
The first was diplomatic. In September 1643 Parliament allied with the Scottish Covenanters through the Solemn League and Covenant, which committed Parliament to a broadly Presbyterian religious settlement in exchange for a Scottish army. This brought a large, seasoned Scottish force into England on Parliament's side and tilted the balance decisively in the north — with immediate consequences at Marston Moor the following year. It also, however, sowed the seeds of future conflict, for the promise of a Presbyterian settlement would later divide Parliament from its increasingly Independent army.
The second development was organisational, and it is the more important for this lesson's central question. Within Parliament's patchwork of regional forces, one association of eastern counties was being built into something new.
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| What it was | A grouping of the eastern counties (Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire and others) organised for war under the Earl of Manchester, with Oliver Cromwell as his lieutenant-general of horse |
| Its advantages | Based in secure, wealthy, strongly Parliamentarian territory well away from the fighting fronts, it could raise money and recruits with relative freedom and drill them into a disciplined force |
| Cromwell's cavalry | Cromwell recruited and trained his horse — later nicknamed the "Ironsides" — for discipline as much as courage, insisting they be men of religious conviction who would obey orders and, crucially, rally after a charge rather than scattering in pursuit |
| The model | The Eastern Association demonstrated, on a regional scale, what a professionally recruited, regularly paid, and religiously motivated army could achieve — the template for the New Model that followed |
The Eastern Association matters because it is the laboratory in which the war-winning formula was worked out. Cromwell's insight, learned from watching Rupert's cavalry throw away victories, was that discipline mattered more than dash: horse that could charge, halt, re-form, and charge again would dominate a battlefield. He recruited for godliness because he believed — and found — that men fighting for conscience made steadier, more obedient soldiers than those serving for pay or deference. The result was a body of cavalry that could do what the Royalist horse could not, and its quality would be proved decisively at Marston Moor. The Eastern Association was, in effect, the New Model Army in miniature, and its success made the case for reorganising Parliament's whole war effort on the same principles.
The first of the two decisive battles of the first Civil War was fought on Marston Moor, outside York, on 2 July 1644 — the largest battle ever fought on British soil, with perhaps 45,000 men engaged. It pitted a combined army of Parliamentarians and Scots against the main northern Royalist force under Prince Rupert and the Marquess of Newcastle.
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| The forces | The allied army — English Parliamentarians under Manchester and Fairfax, plus the Scots under Leven — outnumbered Rupert's Royalists, who had marched to relieve the besieged city of York |
| The fighting | A late-evening engagement in which parts of the allied line were broken; but Cromwell's disciplined cavalry routed the Royalist horse opposite them, then — the decisive stroke — re-formed and swept round to roll up the rest of Rupert's army, exactly the manoeuvre the Ironsides had been trained for |
| The outcome | A crushing allied victory; the northern Royalist army was destroyed, York fell, and the king lost the entire north of England |
| The significance | Marston Moor was the greatest Royalist defeat so far and announced Cromwell as a commander of the first rank; it vindicated the Eastern Association model of disciplined, motivated cavalry |
Marston Moor is significant on two levels. Strategically, it cost Charles the whole of the north — a catastrophic loss of territory, manpower and prestige from which the Royalist cause never recovered. Analytically, it was the proof of concept for the New Model Army. The battle turned on the single fact that Cromwell's horse could rout their opponents and then rally and re-engage, while the Royalist cavalry, once committed, dispersed as it had at Edgehill. Here was the demonstration that organisation and discipline, not dash and courage, won modern battles — the lesson that would be institutionalised across Parliament's entire army within a year. Yet Marston Moor did not end the war: divisions within Parliament's command, and the half-hearted generalship of aristocratic commanders such as Manchester, meant the advantage was not pressed home. That failure — the sense that Parliament was winning battles but not the war — produced the crisis that led to the New Model Army.
The frustration of 1644 — victories won but not exploited — came to a head in a bitter dispute within Parliament between a "war party" that wanted the conflict prosecuted to outright victory and a "peace party" content with a negotiated settlement. The aristocratic generals, above all the Earl of Manchester, embodied the ambivalence: Manchester reportedly objected that if the king were beaten ninety-nine times he would still be king, whereas if he beat them once they would all be hanged — a defeatism that infuriated Cromwell, his own lieutenant. Out of this quarrel came the two measures that transformed Parliament's war effort.
| Measure | Date | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| The Self-Denying Ordinance | April 1645 | Required all members of both Houses of Parliament to lay down their military commands, removing the aristocratic amateurs (Essex, Manchester) whose half-hearted generalship had frustrated the war party; command would now go to professionals chosen for competence, not rank |
| The New Model Army | Early 1645 | A single, professional, national army of around 22,000 men, replacing the patchwork of regional and aristocratic forces; Sir Thomas Fairfax became Lord General, with Oliver Cromwell retained (by exception to the Self-Denying Ordinance) as Lieutenant-General of Horse |
The New Model Army was a genuine, if pragmatic, revolution in English military organisation, and its features repay close attention because they explain both the winning of the war and the political earthquake that followed it.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.