What was King Charles 1st involvement in the civil war and did he actually fight in it?

Question

I need to know what king Charles 1st did during the civil war and whether he fought in it or not.

Answer 1

Although he lacked military experience, Charles was courageous and developed strategic skills as the war went on. He personally commanded the army that outwitted and defeated Sir William Waller in the campaign that led up to the battle of Cropredy Bridge, then pursued and defeated the Earl of Essex at Lostwithiel in the summer of 1644. But the Royalist war effort was hampered by arguments and jealousies amongst its senior officers, with Charles himself frequently indecisive or capricious. He was easily swayed by his counsellors, notably Lord Digby, who was himself conducting a personal vendetta against Prince Rupert. When the King attempted to bring government troops over from Ireland, Parliament mounted a successful propaganda campaign, raising fears of a Catholic conspiracy which greatly damaged the Royalist cause. The combination of Parliament's alliance with the Scottish Covenanters and the formation of the professionally-run New Model Army brought about the defeat of the Royalists in 1645-6.

Answer 2

King Charles of Great Britain, Ireland and France was also in 1642, Captain General of the Royalist forces in the English Civil War. Fighting the rebellious Parliamentarians with both these huge responsibilities was a great and daunting task.

For Charles, the contrast was clear; he was fighting to save his people from rebellion and traitors who wished to overturn the laws and his position, together with the Church of England. All these things were committed to Charles's care by his coronation oaths and by God, whom he believed appointed him, a view widely believed. Charles's strong principles held these things dear to his heart and he was never one to shirk responsibility. This made it difficult for him to carry out these responsibilities whilst knowing as he did, he was fighting his own Englishmen, although they were rebels.
Charles was horrified with the stark reality of casualties from his own people in the war and he always tried to exert a moderating influence on fighting. The fact he had his supporters fighting men who supported his enemies crossed over two of his duties as King and Commander. On the one hand, as King he was responsible for all his people's welfare, but on the other, as commander, he was responsible for his side's victory over the an enemy also comprised of his subjects. This often upset and dismayed the King.


"Have a care of spilling innocent blood...and hereof fail not, as you desire the good of us, who desire nothing more than the good, happiness and peaceable government of our kingdom and not the effusion of the blood of our subjects, mercy being the brightest attribute of a king." King Charles to Prince Rupert, 1643.
The King obviously made many efforts to spare as much blood, whether it was either side, as he could. Charles believed and hoped that the outcome of the war would be quick, once everyone had seen the effects and superiority of his cause. As such, he often gave up and refused to consider opportunities of winning with his army, believing that Parliament would eventually sue for peace once they saw how close he was to winning.

Several times, as after Edgehill, when he could easily have taken London, Charles halted and let the advantage slip away, preferring not to capture his capital with an army - it was not his ideal way to impose himself on the nation as victor, with his army marauding through the capital.

Answer 3

altho he was king he was one of the many that didn't take part himself..as he was afraid of getting his hands dirty.lol

Answer 4

try