First English Civil War
The First English Civil War took place in England and Wales from 1642 to 1646, and forms part of the 1639 to 1653 Wars of the Three Kingdoms. An estimated 15% to 20% of adult males in England and Wales served in the military at some point between 1639 and 1653, while around 4% of the total population died from war-related causes. These figures illustrate the widespread impact of the conflict on society, and the bitterness it engendered as a result.
Conflict over the role of Parliament and religious practice dated from the accession of James VI and I in 1603. These tensions culminated in the imposition of Personal Rule in 1629 by his son, Charles I, who recalled Parliament in April and November 1640. He hoped by doing so to obtain funding that would enable him to reverse his defeat by Scots Covenanters in the Bishops' Wars, but in return Parliament demanded a greater share in government than he was willing to concede.
In its early stages, the vast majority on both sides supported the institution of monarchy, but disagreed on who held ultimate authority. Royalists generally argued both Parliament and the Church of England were subordinate to the king, while most of their Parliamentarian opponents claimed his supremacy did not extend to religion, and wanted a form of constitutional monarchy. When it came to choosing sides, however, individual choices were heavily influenced by religious belief or personal loyalty. Horrified at the devastation inflicted on Europe by the Thirty Years War, many tried to remain neutral, or took up arms with great reluctance.
When fighting began in August 1642, both sides believed it would be settled by a single battle, but it soon became clear this was not the case. Royalist successes in 1643 led to an alliance between Parliament and the Scots, who won a series of battles in 1644, the most significant being the Battle of Marston Moor. Alleged failures to exploit these successes led Parliament in February 1645 to set up the New Model Army, the first centrally funded and professional military force in England, whose success at Naseby in June 1645 proved decisive. The war ended with victory for the Parliamentarian alliance in June 1646 and Charles in custody. However, his refusal to agree to concessions, combined with divisions among his opponents, led to the Second English Civil War in 1648, followed by his execution in January 1649.
Overview
The First English Civil War forms part of the 1639 to 1653 Wars of the Three Kingdoms, fought in England and Wales, along with the separate kingdoms of Scotland and Ireland. Others include the 1639 and 1640 Bishops' Wars, 1641 to 1653 Irish Confederate Wars, 1648 Second English Civil War, 1649 to 1653 Cromwellian conquest of Ireland, and 1650 to 1652 Anglo-Scottish War, previously known as the Third English Civil War. The First and Second English Civil Wars are sometimes grouped together as the 1642 to 1648 English Civil War.The underlying cause of the war in England was a long-running struggle for political and religious control between the monarchy and Parliament that began when James VI and I became king in 1603. The issues re-surfaced after the 1660 Stuart Restoration, and were arguably only resolved by the 1688 Glorious Revolution. American historians like Kevin Phillips have identified many similarities between the principles at stake in 1642, and those leading to the American Revolution.
Royalist or Parliamentarian
A simple division of the opposing parties into Royalist Cavaliers and Parliamentarian Roundheads is a perspective that is now accepted as outdated, but which still informs modern perceptions. These are also influenced by the complex historical reputation of Oliver Cromwell, particularly in Ireland. The installation of his statue outside the Houses of Parliament was approved in 1856, but not carried out until 1895, with most of the funds supplied by Prime Minister Lord Rosebery. In 2004, a group of MPs unsuccessfully proposed a motion to have it melted down, and the debate continues.In reality, individual motives for choosing a side were complex, and there were wide areas of alignment between Royalists and Parliamentarians. Many tried to remain neutral, or participated with extreme reluctance, while others fought on both sides at different points. Historian Tim Harris suggests that by 1640, most agreed attempts by Charles to govern without Parliament had gone too far. After the Grand Remonstrance was submitted in late 1641, moderates like Edward Hyde created a Royalist political faction, arguing Parliament was trying to alter the balance too much the other way.
Both sides claimed they were seeking to restore the "ancient constitution". For many Parliamentarians, and even some Royalists, Stuart concepts of the divine right of kings and absolutism introduced by James VI and I in 1603 were "innovations" that had undermined "traditional" English freedoms and rights. However, the exact nature of these "rights" was unclear and caused divisions within Parliament as the war progressed, since not everyone agreed on what they were seeking to restore, or even if it were desirable.
Most Parliamentarians went to war in 1642 not to depose the king but regulate his powers, while only a tiny minority sought to abolish the monarchy altogether. John Pym, Parliamentarian leader in the Commons, was one of the few who believed forcing Charles to abdicate might be the only option, since past experience showed he would not keep commitments he considered forced on him. Examples included his annulment of the 1628 Petition of Right, and the recent Bishops Wars, when he agreed peace terms with the Scots in 1639 only to provide time to plan another military campaign in 1640. These doubts were confirmed when he and his wife Henrietta Maria repeatedly told foreign ambassadors any concessions were temporary, and would be retrieved by force.
Charles' credibility mattered because regardless of religion or political belief, the vast majority in all three kingdoms believed a 'well-ordered' monarchy was divinely mandated. His opponents argued that if Charles would not obey his own laws or keep his promises, this presented a threat to the state which required either forcing him to do so, or deposing him in favour of his eldest son. Where they disagreed was what 'well-ordered' meant, particularly in terms of the role of Parliament, and control of the church. Both issues were linked, because in the 17th century 'true religion' and 'good government' were seen as mutually dependent. In general, the majority of Royalists supported a Church of England governed by bishops, appointed by, and answerable to, the king. In contrast, many Parliamentarians were Puritans who advocated a Calvinist system of church leadership that was independent of the crown, with ministers and elders chosen within the church.
Another common misperception is that "Roundhead" was interchangeable with "Puritan". In reality, this term applied to anyone who wanted to "purify" the Church of England of "Papist" practices, and covered a wide range of views. Although the majority supported Parliament, some prominent Puritans like Sir William Savile backed Charles out of personal loyalty. Conversely, many Royalists objected to Laudianism, and opposed the appointment of Catholics to senior positions, while attempts to integrate Irish Catholic troops in 1643 caused some regiments to mutiny. Parliamentarians were divided between Presbyterians like Pym who wanted to reform the Church of England, and religious Independents who rejected any form of established church and wanted it abolished. They included Congregationalists like Cromwell and Baptists, who were especially well represented in the New Model Army.
Later in the war, a middle party emerged within Parliament known as "Independent Royalists", who were generally religious radicals but social conservatives, led by William Fiennes, 1st Viscount Saye and Sele, his son Nathaniel Fiennes, and Nathaniel Rich. They were distinguished from Royalists in believing Charles had to be defeated militarily, and from moderate Presbyterians by their opposition to state-mandated religion. After Parliament's victory in 1646, this group supported the Treaty of Newport, and a "balanced" political solution that would leave Charles on the throne. Its members avoided participation in his trial and execution, although they did not speak against it.
While Puritans were the most visible in opposing Laudian reforms and demanding the removal of bishops from the Church of England, their objections were shared by many Royalists, such as George Morley and Sir Edmund Verney. One reason was that bishops held a variety of non-religious roles which impacted all levels of society. They acted as state censors, who were able to ban sermons and writings, while ordinary people could be tried by church courts for crimes including blasphemy, heresy, fornication and other 'sins of the flesh', as well as matrimonial or inheritance disputes. As members of the House of Lords, bishops often blocked legislation opposed by the Crown; their ousting from Parliament by the Clergy Act 1640 was a major step on the road to war, since it meant Charles could no longer prevent passage of legislation that he opposed.
Their removal temporarily ended censorship, and especially in London led to an explosion in the printing of pamphlets, books and sermons, many advocating radical religious and political ideas. Even before 1642, such radicalism concerned conservative Parliamentarians like Denzil Holles. As the war progressed, both they and their Scottish Covenanter allies came to see the Independents and New Model Army as more dangerous than the Royalists and formed the "Peace Party", seeking a negotiated end to the fighting. An alliance between Royalists and these two groups led to the Second English Civil War in 1648.
Lastly, in 1642 England and Wales were part of a highly structured, socially conservative and peaceful society. The devastation caused by the Thirty Years War in Europe meant many wanted to avoid conflict at any cost, although it has been suggested military experience was more common within English society than often assumed. Choice of sides was often driven by personal relationships or loyalties, and in the early stages there were numerous examples of armed neutrality, or local truces, designed to force the two sides to negotiate.