English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-11-04 20:23:50 · 7 answers · asked by Little Miss Chatterbox 2 in Arts & Humanities History

7 answers

Because they paid better.

The Royalist side did not have a standing army. They'd recruit ad hoc from the local area. Being a soldier for the afternoon paid more than being a farm labourer - and in those days it was probably no more dengerous.

Parliament had the New Model Army who were well paid and well trained professionals. They also had religious zeal. Earlier versions of Christianity had taught that professional soldiers stood little chance of getting to heaven unless they bought plenty of indulgences and chantries. Cromwell's chums were Calvinists and believed that the elect went to heaven and nothing you did in life could make any difference - so the army could kill as many people as they liked. (And they did)

2006-11-04 20:38:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Many different reasons, but the two main ones were :

1. The assistance of the Scots who helped Parliament win the Battle of Marston Moor after which the war took a decisive turn in favour of Parliament

2. The New Model Army which became a more effective and disciplined fighting force than the opposition.

The link below will expand on this

2006-11-04 20:30:38 · answer #2 · answered by the_lipsiot 7 · 2 0

Parliament gained the Civil conflict because of the fact it replaced into greater cutting-side and forward finding. It paid and experienced a 'professional military' (people who're paid, experienced, and volunteered to combat for an prolonged time). The King and aristocrats lost because of the fact they stayed with 'previous shaped' techniques and had a 'Cavalier military' (aristocrats and sturdy warring parties yet who might basically combat area time, while they had to and in lots of cases via their own judgements and who could or is probably no longer paid).

2016-10-15 09:46:04 · answer #3 · answered by hadad 4 · 0 0

old Know All is quite right.

To expand on his answer- Parliament also had control over the money and could, therefore, equip it's army well. They also employed "commando" style tactics by using Dragoons effectively. Dragoon squadrons rode into battle on horseback, dismounted to discharge their weapons or fight hand- hand, then remounted in order to be first to the pillage.

2006-11-05 00:07:17 · answer #4 · answered by tony_rly 3 · 0 0

The New Model Army were better organised than Royalist forces

2006-11-05 01:01:57 · answer #5 · answered by Darth Emiras 2 · 0 0

The new model army, they were professional in thier use of manpower,tatics,equipment and the use of god.
dont forget that the royalists were oppresive when dealing with the population,they believed thier own ethos, LF

2006-11-05 00:26:39 · answer #6 · answered by lefang 5 · 0 0

Old know all has my vote. I fought in the Sealed Knot

2006-11-04 23:02:22 · answer #7 · answered by jimmyfish 3 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers