Why did parliament win the civil war in1642?

Question

hi i really need the answer. if possible could explain the reasons deeply, in all categories like army, money ect.. many thanks aj

yes i do mean the english parliament. cna i have the answer in MAJOR DETAILS. or u could put a very helpful link telling me a long explanation. many thanks

Answer 1

Hmmm... Parliament only really 'won' the civil war in 1651 with their victory over the Royalist forces of Charles II at Worcester.

What did of course happen in 1642 is that Charles I attempted to arrest 5 Members of the recently recalled Parliament. When his attempt failed he realised he lacked the support of the House of Commons and fled London in fear of his life.

Thereafter the die was set in that, having surrendered his capital, towns and cities began to take sides either for or against the King.

Having failed to find hoped for Royalist support in Hull, Charles started to mass forces at Nottingham. Effectively by raising the royal battle standard over Nottingham Castle, Charles was declaring war on his own Parliament.

Parliament responded by ordering the Earl of Essex (with a Parliamentary authorised militia) "to rescue His Majesty's person, and the persons of the Prince [of Wales] and the Duke of York out of the hands of those desperate persons who were about them".

With both sides now having assembled armies it was inevitable they would meet in battle, which they did near Worcester in September 1642.

I cannot see however that the war was by any means 'won' in 1642 since the early part of the war went largely to the Royalists.

However Charles did make what was a to prove a significant tactical error in not pursuing Prince Rupert's desire to capitalise on victories along the Thames valley and continue to London. Instead Charles disagreed, giving Essex the time to reach London where his forces could be reinforced.

With Charles' effective abandonment of London to Parliament it could therefore be said that the war began to turn against him.

So my premise is that, with London in Parliamentary hands, the odds of a Royalist victory went right down. But the recruitment of Cromwell by Essex on his way North could be considered just as significant. There were still plenty of battles to be won and it could have gone the other way.

So there you go. Hopefully that will give you some ideas. But I'm afraid you're going to have to do the rest of the work yourself!

Answer 2

Parliament had the New Model Army, whereas the Royalists only had the Levellers, and in the battle of the greebo bands, the New Model Army won.

This is a slight oversimplification. The reality is the Cavaliers (Royalists) were like the US army with their superior equipment (horses) but rather stupid with it, and were susceptible to friendly fire, whereas the Roundheads (Parliament) had big round bulging foreheads, rather like the scientists as Tefal (Tefalheads), and using their superior intellect, they defeated the Cavaliers, using a robot army called the New Model Army.

The Cavaliers nowadays are known as the Vectras, and may be enjoying a renaissance as they become the company car of choice in place of the Roundhead Modeo.

Answer 3

Parliament held on to London.
Also the formation of the New Model Army which produced the most modern and efficient fighting machine in Europe at the time.
Cromwell although he didn't join the Army until the age of 40 was a natural military genius and never lost a battle against anyone .

Answer 4

There are a couple of possibilities.

1) Parliament won because it won and maintained control of the critical river valleys (Thames, Severn and Humber) meant that they held the geoplotical advantage, particularly after they gained the support of the Scots.

2) The organization of the New Model Army was superior to that of the Royalist Army, allowing for better command and control, and thus closer execution of the strategy of the Parliamentarian leadership.

Answer 5

You can look at it from the economic angle- the King and his supporters started the civil war with vast reserves of wealth, but these were depleted as the war went on- in comparison, parliament could finance their war effort with regular and often innovative taxes, which meant that the organs of war ran a lot more smoothly for them... the royalists tried to copy roundhead taxes, but were not as skilled at administering them.

Army-wise, the major innovation on parliaments side was the New Model Army, which I think Cromwell put together- a bunch of devout, well trained soldiers... beforehand, I think the forces were about equal- tactics included pike-regiments on each side, dragoons, or musket-wielding cavalry- I think the royalists had the advantage on the cavalry side, because nobles generally had more access to horses. At the same time, the war was unevenly fought. The Royal headquarters in Cambridge were not far from London, but neither side tried to capture the others base as such, preferring to try to occupy as much territory in the country as possible. The New Model army were useful because they were such skilled fighters, a crack regiment, and it helped to turn battles later in the war in Parliaments favour. Before then, battles were pretty uneven... but was it Marston Moor where the Royalist White Shields Regiment from Newcastle was put to rout? I think that's a good example, I mean, once the fortunes of the Lords supporting the King were depleted, they were gone... if Parliament suffered a set-back they had tax money to fall back on.

It's just a feeling, but I think you might also be able to argue that Parliament was simply more suited to war, more organised, and able to deputise, plan, all the things that are vital for military campaigns... the King was the big planner on the Royalist side, of course, but you could argue that he was less of a co-ordinated military thinker, and when compared with Cromwell, the born-again zealot, less driven.

I seem to recall there was a highland laird, Montrose, who put his force at the King's disposal and kept fighting to the end, but the King didn't really employ the man until it was too late. Parliament, in comparison, made a pact with the covenanteering low-land Scots, and had that army at their disposal on a promise of religious freedom for them (I think), something the King wasn't prepared to compromise over... don't forget the war began largely as a result of the King's inability to negotiate- he had the divine right, sure, but it turned out that 'god' smiled on the side that was best prepared.

Man, you know, I'm reaching back about ten years to remember my GCSE/A-Levels here, but I don't think the first Civil war ended until about 1644 and the battle of Naseby. The second, short civil war came in in about 1646 (?), but it really sealed the King's fate... his forces weren't strong enough- or linked up enough- to defeat the entrenched Parliamentary side, and after that they stopped negotiating and started thinking about chopping off his head... which is what they did- you know that, of course... anyway, hope this rambling has been of some help.

Answer 6

Parliament gained the Civil conflict with the aid of fact it replaced into greater cutting-edge and forward finding. It paid and experienced a 'expert military' (people who're paid, experienced, and volunteered to combat for a protracted time). The King and aristocrats lost with the aid of fact they stayed with 'old shaped' techniques and had a 'Cavalier military' (aristocrats and robust opponents yet who could in basic terms combat area time, whilst they wanted to and usually by employing their own judgements and who could or won't be paid).

Answer 7

because the parlament had a much better army called 'the new model army' which beat king charles

Answer 8

Chopping the kings head off was a good way of showing who had won!

Answer 9

because the Royalist lost

Answer 10

english parliament you mean?