When the English Civil War began in October 1642 the Parliamentary and royalist forces were fairly evenly matched yet the greater resources available to Parliament meant they should have been winning the war. 1 Parliament had a greater share of tax revenues, found it easier to loans, controlled the London militias (and therefore the city), held the majority of naval ports, as well as the navy. Controlling the ports and the navy was important as it meant that the royalists found it harder to gain money and supplies from abroad.2 When Parliament made an alliance with the Scottish Presbyterian armies then considered to be the most effective soldiers in the British Isles many felt that this alliance should lead to victory sooner rather than later.3 Radical elements in Parliament regarded the Self Denying Ordinance as the key measure to allow them to take full advantage of these favourable factors.4

At the start of the English Civil War the main Parliamentary army commanders had been the Earls of Essex and Manchester who were inexperienced at holding such commands, unlike the commanders of the Scottish Presbyterian armies or the royalist cavalry commander Prince Rupert of the Rhine.5 Not only were the Earls of Essex and Manchester inexperienced, they were generally cautious in their tactics and were half-hearted in their desire to defeat the king, and would have accepted peace offers, if Charles I had offered these to them. To the annoyance of the more radical elements within the Parliamentary forces the Earls of Essex and Manchester had been prepared to accept all the conditions set by the Scottish Presbyterians without exception.6 Had the Earls of Essex of Manchester remained in charge of English Parliamentary forces that the Scottish would have had a greater influence over subsequent events, and that the New Model Army would not have fought them.7 The Self Denying Ordinance would shift the balance of power in the English Parliamentary and Scottish Presbyterian alliance in favour of the radicals within the Parliamentary forces, though that was not predicted in 1644 or 1645.8

The Self Denying Ordinance suited those radicals in the Parliamentary forces that wanted to gain complete control of these armies to win the English Civil War.9 There were radical critics of the Earls of Essex and Manchester most notably Oliver Cromwell and Henry Ireton who claimed that their ill-suited commanders’ tactics, strategies, and uninspiring leadership were more likely to lead to defeat rather than victory.10 For instance, if the royalist commanders especially Prince Rupert had led their troops better at the Battle of Edge Hill they could have reached London. A successful assault on London would have meant that the English Civil War would have ended almost as soon as it had begun.11 Cromwell and Ireton wanted the Self-Denying Ordinance so that they could make the Earls of Essex and Manchester give up their commissions within the Parliamentary armies. The House of Lords were also reluctant to pass the ordinance. Cromwell was its most ardent advocate as it was the only way to avoid “a dishonourable peace”.12 The Earl of Manchester suspected that its passing would fill the Parliamentary armies “Anabaptists and sectaries, a breed of people who would do away with titles and privileges and were potential regicides”.13

The Earls of Essex and Manchester were not initially happy to accept the Self-Denying Ordinance, and only agreed to it as they understood that the ordinance meant Oliver Cromwell and Henry Ireton along with the more radical MPs within the Parliamentary armies would lose their commissions as well.14 The moderates assumed that these radicals would not give up their seats in the House of Commons to retain their rank in the army, and so would have to resign from the army.15 The moderate elements within parliament were opposed to the Self Denying Ordinance and a second version had to be developed to finally gain support for the purging of the officers of the Parliamentary armies. Cromwell showed he was as astute at politics as he was fighting in a battle.16 The removal of the Earls of Essex and Manchester from military command was therefore the first significant consequence of the passing of the Self-Denying Ordinance in 1644.17

The passing of the Self Denying Ordinance in 1644 was significant because it ended the impasse within the Parliamentary armies and Parliament about the best tactics and strategies to be pursued in order to win the English Civil War. The moderate as well as the radical elements on the Parliamentary side accepted with varying degrees of enthusiasm the passing of the Self-Denying Ordinance in order to develop coherent tactics and strategies to defeat the royalists.18 The leaders of the Parliamentary armies realised that too many arguments about tactics and strategies would be seriously counter-productive, and would also allow the royalist to recovering from their shattering defeat at the Battle of Marston Moor.19 Oliver Cromwell was the Parliamentary commander that emerged from the victory at Marston Moor with the most prestige, with his cavalry regiment of Ironsides being a highly effective unit. Cromwell could potentially have lost the most from the passing of the Self-Denying Ordinance in 1644.20 Instead of losing position and influence within the Parliamentary armies due to the passing of the Self Denying Ordinance, Cromwell actually gained from it been passed. Cromwell though argued that Parliament gained the most, as its armies were no longer “ragged, insubordinate, ill-fed, ill-equipped”. 21 After the House of Lords rejected the first version of the Self Denying Ordinance, Cromwell was specifically exempted from the need to resign his army position by the second version of the ordinance, which was successfully passed through the House of Lords after months of heated discussions. The passing of the Self Denying Ordinance made it possible for the emergence of the New Model Army heavily influenced by Cromwell during the pivotal year of 1645.22

The development of, and the subsequent fighting capabilities of the New Model Army and to a lesser extent the New Model Navy were thus significant outcomes of the passing of the Self Denying Ordinance in 1644. Instead of the Parliamentary forces being poorly organised with variable standards of equipment, tactics, strategy, and commanding officers the New Model Army emerged as a very effective fighting force, that went on to defeat all the enemies that it faced.23 The passing of the Self Denying Ordinance got rid of the amateur, moderate, and faltering leadership of the Earls of Essex and Manchester, whilst allowing Cromwell, Ireton, and Sir Thomas Fairfax to take commands.24 The newly empowered commanders proceeded to forge the New Model Army into a fighting force that reflected their tactics and strategies as well as their religious and political outlook. The new commanders ensured that the New Model Army was well equipped, well organised, with its troopers been noted for their devotion to the success of the Parliamentary cause.25 Placing Sir Thomas Fairfax in charge was a sound choice yet Oliver Cromwell was considered by many Parliamentarians and royalists as the lynchpin of the New Model Army that emerged after the passing of the Self Denying Ordinance, and recruited men equally committed to defeating the king into that army.26 The better organisation, equipment, and training thus enabled the New Model Army to overwhelmingly defeat the royalists at the Battle of Nasby. The Parliamentary victory at Nasby effectively ended any prospects of the royalists ever winning the English Civil War.27

Another significant result of the passing of the Self Denying Ordinance was that it changed the nature of the political and military alliance between the English Parliamentary forces and the Scottish Presbyterian Armies. Before the passing of the Self Denying Ordinance the Scottish Presbyterian Armies had been able to generally persuade the English Parliamentary forces and their political masters to do what they wanted to do. After the passing of the Self Denying Ordinance the domination of the radical and hard line elements meant that the English Parliament in general, and the New Model Army in particular were not content to meekly do everything requested of them by the Scottish Presbyterian Armies.28 The alliance between the English Parliament and the Scots lasted long enough to ensure final victory over the royalists was won. However the Scots were unhappy that the English Parliament did not keep the promises made to them when the alliance was first agreed to, yet the moderate leadership of the Earls of Essex and Manchester might have stuck to those agreements. Oliver Cromwell and those with similar views did not want the Scots to dictate to them when it came down to the political and religious that they should hold and indeed impose throughout the British Isles. Cromwell also suspected that the Scots just like the Earls of Essex and Manchester would always be ready to reach an agreement with Charles I whenever it would suit them to do so. That suspicion was ultimately vindicated when the Scots attempted to restore Charles I and later Charles II to the throne. As the passing of the Self Denying Ordinance had given Fairfax and Cromwell control of the most potent force in Britain in the form of the New Model Army, they were capable of fighting on until they won whether in alliance with the Scots or fighting against them.29

There are arguments that the passing of the Self Denying Ordinance in 1644 was not actually as significant as many contemporaries or historians have depicted. The alliance between the English Parliamentary forces and the Scots would probably have won the English Civil War without the passing of the Self Denying Ordinance as the military and naval balance of was strongly in their favour as the royalists were over stretched in maintaining their war effort. The English Parliamentary forces and their Scots allies held the majority of the most strategically important cities or towns including London, Hull, York, and Edinburgh whilst the royalists held a decreasing amount of territory. The English Civil War was a conflict of attrition and all the long-tern factors were in the favour of the Parliamentary forces provided they avoided in catastrophic defeats similar to the one they had inflicted upon the royalists at Marston Moor. The Parliamentary forces were after all in danger of losing that battle until Oliver Cromwell had intervened decisively to turn defeat into victory. As the war dragged on the Parliamentary forces could reinforce their armies with considerably less difficulty than the royalists could theirs. Victory if they remained focused, patient, and united was theirs for the taking, the royalists had rely on the Parliamentary forces making disastrous errors to win the war.30

As the royalists lost further amounts of territory it further weakened their chances of finding resources and manpower to continue fighting. After their defeat at Marston Moor the royalists managed to regroup yet their commanders were well aware that they could not match the numerical or material strength of the Parliamentary forces unless they could arrange for reinforcements from the European mainland or Ireland. The queen’s connections to the French government were a potential means of gaining enough reinforcements to turn royalist fortunes around, if they could arrive safely in England. The royalist commanders were hoping that the next major battle if they could manage to win it would enhance the prospects of winning the war. The onus was effectively upon the royalists to achieve a spectacular military victory or to convince the Parliamentary forces and their Scots allies to make a peace agreement to end the conflict. Even if the Self Denying Ordinance had not been passed the royalist commanders were aware that they were losing the war and they were reliant upon the Parliamentary forces and the Scots failing to take advantage of the factors that could decisively defeat them to stay involved in the conflict.31

Although the royalists had succeeded in capturing the port of Bristol after a successful siege it was not as big a blow to the Parliamentary cause as Charles I had hoped or the Parliamentary military commanders had feared. The over riding problem for the royalists was that had declining amounts of money, weapons, munitions, and fighting men available to continue fighting let alone win the war out right. Capturing Bristol did not resolve such shortages sufficiently enough for the royalist commanders to alter the balance of the conflict in their favour. The royalist ships were not able to bring in supplies in the quantities required as the Parliamentary navy effectively blockaded the major ports of the British mainland. Given enough time even under the command of the excessively cautious Earls of Essex and Manchester the numerical as well the material superiority of the Parliamentary forces would have won the English Civil War. They might not have had needed to fight on to the bitter end as Charles I might have reached a settlement with them to end the war.32

The Self Denying Ordinance was not actually necessary in order for the Parliamentary forces to become more effective, and thus win the war. As the most effective and committed of the Parliamentary commanders would have undoubtedly gained a greater influence and even control upon over all military tactics and strategies employed by the Parliamentary forces. He had after all boosted his already rising reputation as a military leader during the victory won at Marston Moor whilst further undermining the position of the Earls of Essex and Manchester. Whilst without the passing of the Self Denying Ordinance the Earls of Essex and Manchester would have remained the nominal heads of the English Parliamentary forces the authority they actually exercised would have declined as the hard liners in general and Oliver Cromwell in particular gained prestige for their victories. Naturally enough de facto control of the Parliamentary forces would have passed to these hard liners given enough time. As the Scots representative amongst the Parliamentary forces, Robert Baillie noted the English commanders were “an irresolute, divided, and dangerously –humoured people”.33

Therefore to conclude there were various significant outcomes that resulted as a consequence of the passing of the Self Denying Ordinance in 1644. The Parliamentary efforts to win the English Civil War before the passing of the Self Denying Ordinance had been faltering due to divisions over tactics, strategies, and the lack of quality in the military leadership. Up to 1644 the main leaders of the Parliamentary forces had been the Earls of Essex and Manchester, and they were indeed perceived as being half-hearted in their approach to the conduct of the war as they would have preferred to have come to terms with the king. The purpose of the passing of the Self Denying Ordinance was to force the moderate commanders out of their positions, and allow the hard liners such as Oliver Cromwell to take their places. After the passing of the Self Denying Ordinance, therefore Oliver Cromwell and Sir Thomas Fairfax were appointed the main commanders of the newly created New Model Army. The emergence of the New Model Army was a politically as well as a militarily significant consequence of the passing of the Self Denying Ordinance for it determined the final outcome of the English Civil War. It was arguably Oliver Cromwell that gained the most from the passing of the Self Denying Ordinance in 1644 as he was the most forceful of the New Model Army commanders, respected by many, and feared by all that subsequently fought against him. In many respects the Self Denying Ordinance was far more of a political necessity than a military one as the longer the war continued the less likely a royalist victory became.

Without the passing of the Self Denying Ordinance it would have been much harder for Cromwell to achieve his political and military prominence during the Commonwealth and the Lord Protectorate. On the other hand the Earls of Essex and Manchester never held command, but at least they could retire into the background. However it was the monarchy, and the Scottish Presbyterian Armies that were undoubtedly the biggest losers from the passing of the Self Denying Ordinance, Charles I because it cost him his life, Charles II because he had to remain in exile. The Scots were heavily defeated by the New Model Army at Dunbar, Preston, and lastly at Worcester. Under Cromwell and Fairfax (until 1649) the New Model Army was virtually unbeatable and only the inability to find a replacement for Cromwell led to the restoration of the monarchy. Without the passing of the Self Denying Ordinance the New Model Army would not have been so effective, with the Earls of Essex and Manchester still in charge the royalists could have won.

Bibliography

Ashley, M. England in the Seventeenth Century (1977) Oxford University Press, Oxford

Bruce J & Masson D, (1875) The Quarrell between the Earl of Manchester and Oliver Cromwell, Camden Press, London

Carlin, N. Historical Association Studies – The Causes of the English Civil War (1999) Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Oxford.

Fraser A, (1973) Cromwell, Our Chief of Men, Panther Books, London
Hill C, (1980) the Century of Revolution 1603 -1714 2nd edition, Routledge, London

Poulsen, C. the English rebels (1984) The Journeyman Press, London & New York

Royale T, (2004) Civil War – The Wars of the Three Kingdoms, Pimlico, London

Schama S, (2001) A History of Britain – The British Wars 1603-1776, BBC Worldwide, London

Smith A G R, (1997) the Emergence of a Nation State the Commonwealth of England 1529-1660, 2nd edition Longman, London and New York

Young P, (1970) Marston Moor, London

1 Carlin, 1999 p. 31

2 Fraser, 1973 p. 120; Poulson, 1984 p. 78

3 Royale, 2004 p.169

4 Hill, 1980 p. 108

5 Fraser, 1973 p. 17

6 Royale, 2004 p. 184

7 Ashley, 1977 p. 39

8 Schama, 2001 p. 230

9 Smith 1997 p. 323

10 Royale, 2004 p. 169

11 Fraser, 1973 p. 60

12 Royale, 2004 p. 311

13 Royale, 2004 p. 310

14 Schama, 2001 p. 231

15 Fraser, 1973 p. 141

16 Royale, 2004 p. 311

17 Smith, 1997 p. 322

18 Bruce & Masson, 1875

19 Fraser, 1973 p. 128

20 Young, 1970 p. 123

21 Fraser, 1973 p. 143

22 Hill, 1980 p. 108

23 Smith, 1997 p. 323

24 Schama, 2001 p. 231

25 Fraser, 1973 p. 143

26 Royale, 2004 p. 312

27 Fernandez-Arnesto, & Wilson, 1996, Bantam Press, London

28 Fraser, 1973 p. 144

29 Royale, 2004 p. 312

30 Fraser, 1973 p. 144

31 Schama, 2001 p. 231

32 Royale, 2004 p. 312

33 Royale, 2004 p. 319

He played an important role in winning the second civil war and the lead role in winning the third as Fairfax refused to move against the Irish. The Scots within the Covenant switched sides for the second civil war. They preferred a weak king who would enforce their Presbyterian Church on all three kingdoms in return for keeping his thrones, to the English Parliament that did not keep promises, or even worse a republic dominated by the New Model Army. Cromwell’s defeat of the Scots at Preston in 1648 sealed the king’s fate; those MPs who did not support the trial were removed by Pride’s purge. Prior to this Cromwell had tried to reach a settlement with Charles, but then became in favour of his execution.

The Rump Parliament feared that Ireland could be used as a launch pad to restore the monarchy in the form of Charles II and therefore sent Cromwell to deal with the Irish.

The massacre of the garrison at Drogheda in September 1649 is probably the most controversial aspect of Cromwell’s military career. It provides prove of his cynical and ruthless ways to his detractors and was hard if not impossible to justify for admirers, although it has not stopped attempts to do so. Drogheda had the desired effect of weakening Irish defences, which allowed Oliver to return to face the threat from Scotland.

The Scots had been angry at the execution of their king (Charles I was born in Dumfermline, Scotland) and became resolved to put his son on all three of the vacated thrones. After all the Scots had only had religious differences with Charles, which had inadvertently started the civil wars in the first place. Oliver was now in charge of the New Model Army and entered Scotland during July 1650. By the beginning of September Cromwell had moved to Dunbar to evacuate his wounded and gain re – supply by sea. Although outnumbered the New Model Army gained an overwhelming victory with minimal loss to themselves. It was another prime example of Cromwell attacking the weakest points of his enemies, during a night attack. In the aftermath of this victory he did not allow the Scots to go into the Highlands but allowed them to go to England. This was a sensible strategy as it weakened their forces and allowed him to secure Glasgow and Edinburgh before setting off in pursuit. At the battle of Worcester a year to the day following Dunbar, the tired Scots were finally caught in Cromwell’s trap and despite brave resistance were crushed. Cromwell had ended the military threats to the republic.

The Civil War (1642 – 1649). King Charles I needed more money to increase the quality of his army, to get more money he had to raise the taxes. But to raise the taxes he had to gain permission from his MP’s, parliament didn’t like the idea of this and did not approve of it. The king was furious and he decided to take this matter into his own hands, first of all he sent parliament home. He raised the taxes anyway and invented ship money, which was taxes for people who lived on ships around the land, but didn’t actually live on the land. Parliament disagreed with the kings decisions and this enraged the king even more. Until eventually he declared civil war.

Cromwell stood up to the king, which nobody had dared to do before. To some people Cromwell may have been quite villainous in fighting back, he could have possibly negotiated and come to terms with the king, but in this situation it looked like he had no other options. He fought the decisive fight at the battle of Naseby. He introduced a new style of fighting; strategies, paying and promoting hard fighting soldiers. He didn’t give people good ranks because they came from royalty. Cromwell was a good leader and believed God was on his side, and he was very tough with discipline towards his soldiers. As large as the king’s army was Cromwell claimed victory with his clever tactics and well-trained men. If he worked that hard to train his men and spent a lot of time thinking up tactics he must be a hero in some way or another.

The Execution of Charles I (1649). The protestants of England thought he was very heroic; he had the courage to stand up to the king which all protestants wanted to do, but didn’t dare because he could easily have them killed and also because of ‘The divine rights of King’s. The divine rights of kings simply means that they were chosen by God to be put ruler of their country and that their authority should not be questioned.

The king was put in prison and in prison he planned a second revolution. Shortly after this, Cromwell put him on trial, which again, nobody else would consider doing. He accused the king of treason, Oliver Cromwell came out on top of the trial and forced some people to sign the king’s death warrant. Because of the death warrant King Charles was hanged, in the eyes of protestants Cromwell was very heroic, but in the eyes of Catholics he was evil. The Catholics knew life would religiously become a lot more difficult.

Dealing with Opposition. After the execution of king Charles , Oliver Cromwell was offered the title King of England. He declined the offer and became lord protector instead. Now that Cromwell had power he had to take all of the complaints and rants from the people of England. He had different views from the Diggers, Levellers, 5th Monarchists and woman about the law. He massacred the Diggers, he didn’t want anyone thinking against him and he didn’t need to take anybody else’s views in. That meant everyone’s demands were not dealt with at all.

The reign of a Catholic ruler meant that the Catholics had more power with the Catholic churches. But Cromwell wanted that to change, he wanted a new, protestant England. And although he had been taught to hate and not to show respect towards Catholics when he was at school, he allowed them to worship in  their own way in private. But he didn’t want large gatherings, especially large gatherings of Catholics, because he wanted to make sure there were no conspiracies.

Drogheda. If Catholics were to break the law they would be punished more severely than protestants, because Cromwell did not like them, some protestants may have liked this putting the Catholics in their place. He was especially cruel to the Irish Catholics and he murdered many of them.  This was quite an unfair and villainous act, people should have equal rights.

Cromwell appeared to be a very boring person and was called a killjoy. Maybe he was called this because of the strictness he had towards his men, but he did have a laugh now and again. He sometimes played practical jokes and laughed at some amusing things. He was seen a bit of hypocrite due to this, because he banned a lot of amusing activities being a puritan. These banned activities included: Christmas, Easter, going to Ale houses, theatres and large social gatherings.

He also began to change how the churches looked, from the colourful decorations and statues to black and white and plain. Cromwell thought that nobody should be distracted at all from the worshipping of their lord. In addition to this he changed the way ceremonies and rituals were performed. After assessing this section I believe that Cromwell has displayed many points of villainy; like the murder of the Irish Catholics.

Conclusion. He changed battles and warfare forever, along with changing England all together. Parliament from there on gained more power than the king had, they represent people and democracy, the people of England had more chance of making a change to the country if they made a complaint. As considerate as this may seem it wasn’t Cromwell’s intention to make people more powerful and he thought he was above because he thought that God had something special planned for him. A very big headed, inconsiderate action. But with his confidence he stood his ground against the king for his country.

He had the king put on trial for treason and actually forced people into signing the death warrant whether they liked it or not. He did not give the king a chance to defend himself, he stood by his convictions and didn’t compromise or negotiate. After Cromwell’s death due to malarial fever at Whitehall on 3 September 1658, Charles heir, King Charles II had every man who signed that death warrant killed. Some historians say that Cromwell may well have been poisoned by his doctor but most historians believe it was the malarial infection. The reign of a Catholic ruler was back, but Cromwell’s legacy is not forgotten and because of his extraordinary legacy he was put on the half crown coin which is about equivalent to 12p today.

The three kingdoms of Charles I inadvertently drifted into the first of the English Civil Wars during the course of 1642. The government of Charles I could be blamed for promoting all be it unintentionally the events that led to the outbreak of the first conflict in October 1642 at the inconclusive Battle of Edgehill. It was the decision of Charles I to introduce a modified version of the English Common Book of Prayer into Scottish church services backfired disastrously and led to the Bishops War. The Scots formed their own army, its efficiency improved by the presence of Alexander and David Lesley who had experience of fighting in the Thirty Years War. Events in Scotland soon escalated out of the king’s control but he had nobody to blame apart from himself and William Laud, the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Aside from occasional troubles in Ireland there had been no major fighting in the British Isles for a few decades, and the hastily assembled English armies of Charles I proved completely inadequate for fighting the Bishops War. It was probably a failure compounded due to the Protestants within the English armies being unwilling to fight the Scottish Presbyterians when they had similar religious and political beliefs. The expensive failure to defeat the Scots in the Bishops War forced Charles I to reluctantly recall Parliament in order to drive them out of England. After the failure of the Short Parliament, Charles I’s relationship with the Puritan elements of the Long Parliament was so acrimonious that it resulted in the first English Civil War. Whilst the king and the Long Parliament disagreed over the raising of taxes and the control of the army there was a major rebellion in Ireland that ended any prospect of a peaceful compromise. The killing of Protestant planters in Ulster would also act as a precursor to massacres, summary executions, and atrocities during the course of the subsequent English Civil Wars.

The knowledge that the king would almost certainly have the Parliamentary leaders executed for treason arguably increased the resolve of hard-liners such as Oliver Cromwell to carry on fighting. The Royalists claimed that they were more chivalrous than their enemies were, but in reality the gentry would play a large role in all the armies involved in fighting the English Civil Wars. As the English Parliamentary forces and their Scottish Presbyterian allies held most of the territories that made it harder for the Royalists to put other prisoners of war on trial. The Royalists were to use military tribunals to convict prisoners of war of treason, as well as resorting to summary executions. Charles I did establish courts in his make shift capital of Oxford, yet these had little influence over Royalist forces. Both sides found it difficult to find adequate accommodation for their captives leading to prisoners being held in churches, and occasionally organised exchanges of prisoners. For instance, prisoners taken at the Battle of Westhougton in December 1642 were exchanged in January 1643. Prisoner exchanges were convenient for all sides, as they got their own soldiers back and were not responsible for looking after so many prisoners of war.

Charles I could demonstrate a great deal of mercy towards his adversaries. After a victory at Lostwithiel the king even released all of the prisoners of war that had been taken, and ordered the punishment of his soldiers that had acted brutally towards their prisoners. As the first English Civil War dragged on, the lack of food and money available to the Royalist forces made them less generous towards their prisoners of war and civilians alike, out of scarcity rather than malice. Even when concerted efforts were made for the good treatment of prisoners of war the reality was that a lack of food, medicines, and basic sanitary provisions put all soldiers, prisoners, and civilians at risk of premature death in the wake of battles and sieges.

The Scots and English Parliamentary sides in theory at least had control of the majority of law courts, yet did not use them to decide how prisoners of war were treated after being captured. Basically the ways in which prisoners of war were treated was down to the discretion of the military commandos upon the ground as well as how disciplined their armies were. The military commanders might decide to allow defeated enemies quarter, yet if they did not fully control their own troops that meant that men were killed, rather than taken prisoner of war. The Battle of Edgehill set the precedent with regard to the taking of prisoners of war during the first English Civil War, few were taken if possible. Both sides would often leave their seriously wounded on the battlefield to die, as they did not have enough medical resources to treat the most gravely injured. Often wounds and infections killed more men than the actual fighting. The ill discipline of the Royalist cavalry at the Battle of Edgehill proved significant, if they had reformed earlier they could have decisively defeated the Parliamentary forces of the Earl of Essex. The cavalry of Prince Rupert when it charged induced panic in the Parliamentary army yet it failed to swiftly return to the battlefield. The Royalist failure to win decisively at Edgehill meant that Charles I was unable to reach London to bring the first English Civil War to a swift conclusion.

The defeat at Marston Moor did not immediately lead to the collapse of the Royalist war effort; indeed the Royalist forces were able to make gains in the South West, as well as the Midlands. The failure to take full and immediate advantage of the victory at Marston Moor led to the eventual passing of the Self-Denying Ordinance and the emergence of the New Model Army. Before the New Model Army could deal a decisive blow against the Royalist forces under Prince Rupert carried out some of the worst atrocities of the English Civil War. When the Parliamentary garrison at Leicester failed to defend the city, the Royalist soldiers murdered, raped, pillaged, and plundered at will after it fell. No distinction was drawn between the Parliamentary garrison and the civilian population; none of the 200 Scots prisoners of war were allowed to survive, being shot on the same day that they surrendered.

The main turning point of the first English Civil War was the Battle of Naseby, when the New Model Army without the Scottish Presbyterians (who were in Scotland attempting to defeat the Marquis of Montrose) defeated the smaller Royalist forces. Estimates at the time gave the strength of the New Model Army at Naseby around 15,000 men, a few thousand more than the Royalist army was. This defeat effectively ended any lingering prospects of the Royalists winning the first English Civil War. Whilst the Royalist forces had been able to brutally take Leicester weeks earlier they proved to be no match for the well drilled not to mention well armed New Model Army. Unlike earlier skirmishes and even Marston Moor a rather more substantial number of Royalist soldiers were captured at Naseby and therefore became prisoners of war. Around 4,500 Royalist soldiers were taken as prisoners of war and were then forced to march through the streets of London in a mocking parody of a victory parade. The prisoners of war captured at Naseby aside from been publicly mocked in London were not particularly well treated. A majority of the Royalist soldiers captured during the battle were Welsh infantry regiments, some of whom had their wives attached to their army’s pay train, worse was to befall these women during the battle at Naseby.

The Royalists planned to launch simultaneous uprisings throughout England and Wales to coincide with an invasion by the Scottish Presbyterians from north of the border. The leadership of the New Model Army especially Oliver Cromwell and Henry Ireton were determined to quickly crush their Royalist, English and Scottish Presbyterian opponents. The determination of the New Model Army to destroy all opposition meant that it was reluctant to take prisoners of war or offer any quarter at all during battle and sieges. All of the uprisings in England and Wales were ruthlessly put down with scant regard for the fair treatment of prisoners of war. The Royalist uprisings in England and Wales were also more of an annoyance than a serious threat to the military supremacy of the New Model Army, no real test for Oliver Cromwell and Sir Thomas Fairfax. The Scottish Presbyterian forces that invaded England in the second English Civil War were not the veteran armies of the Bishops War and the first English Civil War, which proved fatal to their chances of beating the New Model Army.

The new Scottish Presbyterian forces were instead inadequately trained raw recruits. The gravely inexperienced Scottish Presbyterian forces actually got as far as Preston when their luck and that of Charles I ran out. The New Model Army swiftly won the very one-sided battle at Preston, resulting in the recapture of the most important prisoner of war of all, Charles I. The victory at Preston ended the second English Civil War and resulted in the decision of the Rump Parliament in conjunction with the New Model Army to put the king on trial. The New Model Army demonstrated its ruthlessness during the second English Civil War and it hoped that the execution of Charles I would put an end to the fighting in the British Isles once and for all.

To make the trial of Charles I increasingly likely the Long Parliament was cleansed of Presbyterian members via Pride’s Purge. Pride himself argued that the king should be imprisoned, as “no further security” would be unavailable until that happened.

The trial and the execution of Charles I did not however bring peace or even stability to his former three kingdoms. Even members of the Rump Parliament were unsure about putting the king on trial; the Earl of Northumberland saying it was “very unreasonable”. Instead his death as a martyr for the Royal and the church of England causes was mainly responsible for starting the third and final English Civil War. The renewal of fighting was due to the Irish and the Scottish as much as the English Royalists refusing to accept the abolition of the monarchy and support for making the Prince of Wales the next king. Due to the gravity of the situation the Rump Parliament decided to send Oliver Cromwell and the strongest regiments of the New Model Army over to Ireland to establish it’s authority there. Oliver Cromwell went as the new head of the New Model Army as Sir Thomas Fairfax refused to go to Ireland. The Irish Royalists held strong positions and were ably led by the Earl of Ormand who had also managed to get Roman Catholics and Protestants to co-exist in his army.

The problem for the Earl of Ormand was that Oliver Cromwell and the majority of the New Model Army hated the Irish and also wanted to avenge the Ulster massacres of 1641. No distinction was made between the Protestants and the Roman Catholics within the Earl of Ormand’s forces, Cromwell intending to ruthlessly assert English Parliamentary control over all of Ireland. The first target for the New Model Army was Drogheda, which had the Irish garrison refused to accept the offer of quarter from the New Model Army. Cromwell decided that nobody in Drogheda should be allowed to survive once his soldiers got inside that town. Cromwell was well aware that his decision would entail the deaths of thousands of soldiers and civilians yet justified it by claiming it would shorten the war in Ireland. The contemporary rules of war would have deemed the actions of the New Model Army once Drogheda fell as being legally acceptable. Oliver Cromwell had to leave Ireland before it had been fully subjugated placing his son-in-law Henry Ireton in charge. The New Model Army had not taken any prisoners of war instead killing all its opponents once the offer of quarter had been refused. The next target for the New Model Army was the town of Wexford, which was duly taken after a brief siege. As quarter had been refused none was given when the siege ended brutally.

Oliver Cromwell had been recalled from Ireland by the Rump Parliament in order to deal with the revival of the Royalist threat from Scotland. The Scottish Presbyterians had crowned Charles II and intended to restore the monarchy in all three kingdoms. Unlike the second English Civil War the Scottish Presbyterian forces contained the veterans of the Bishops War and the first English Civil War. Therefore, the Scottish Presbyterian forces posed a greater threat to the Rump Parliament. Oliver Cromwell was able to outwit his former ally David Leslie at the Battle of Dunbar in September 1650. The New Model Army attacked at night and thus inflicted thousands of fatalities at a minimal cost to itself and whilst not bothering to take any prisoners of war, Cromwell showed his tactical astuteness by allowing the Scottish Presbyterian forces to invade England with his regiments following behind them. The further south the Scottish Presbyterian forces went the weaker they became, with Cromwell biding his time to their rear.

A year to the day after Dunbar the Scottish Presbyterians marched into the trap set for them at Worcester, their army was much less experienced due to the losses inflicted upon them at Dunbar and Charles II officers that he did not like due to their more extreme religious beliefs. The Scottish Presbyterian forces weakened by its march down to Worcester fought bravely until they surrendered having the good sense to accept quarter when it was offered to them. For Cromwell the stunning victory at Worcester was only marred by the successful escape of Charles II form the battlefield? Thousands of Scottish Presbyterians were captured their treatment as prisoners of war not been as bad as it would have been in the first English Civil War. The victory of the New Model Army at Worcester marked the end of the English Civil War with Charles II opting to stay in exile and waiting for the death of Cromwell. That in the end was the most – sound strategy of all as it avoided further crushing defeats and stopped any more Royalists needlessly becoming prisoners of war. Whilst Cromwell had been the master of every battlefield with the New Model Army he was unable to find a viable long-term alternative to the monarchy.

During the second and third English Civil War the military superiority of the New Model Army was blatantly obvious both to its commanders and the opponents attempting to defeat it. Hand in hand with the fighting qualities of the New Model Army went the ruthless leadership of Oliver Cromwell who was determined that the Royalists should be defeated once and for all. Cromwell always defended the interests of the New Model Army, as it was his most important political weapon, as well as being such a potent military force. During the second and third English Civil Wars the New Model Army was the only force that had the capacity to take a large number of prisoners of war and possibly treat them well by the standards of the day. In contrast the Royalists, the Irish and the Scottish Presbyterians lacked the resources to accommodate a small number of prisoners of war let alone successfully overcome the military might of the New Model Army. Divisions within the New Model Army itself could have been more threatening to the Rump Parliament, with Cromwell personally having to crush mutinies and dealt with the Levellers. In truth the New Model Army could pick and choose when to take prisoners of war and how to subsequently treat them. The Scottish Presbyterians had been former allies, yet that did not meant that they received preferential treatment as prisoners of war than any of the other enemies of the New Model Army.

Therefore during the English Civil Wars between 1642 and 1651 prisoners of war were not generally treated well, especially by modern standards. The poor treatment of prisoners of war was partly caused by a lack of resources to look after them properly and sometimes a desire to make them suffer for fighting on the losing side. How well prisoners of war were actually treated was largely dependent upon who was captured and by whom they were captured. None of the military commanders in the English Civil Wars had to take prisoners of war if they had offered quarter and it had been refused. In many ways it was the ordinary soldiers that stood the greatest chance of being fairly or leniently treated as prisoners of war during the English Civil Wars. The Royalist propaganda certainly tried to portray their commanders as being more likely to take prisoners of war and subsequently treat them well than any of their opponents. Officers sometimes faced summary execution after being captured, as they were held responsible for the past actions of their own forces.

The New Model Army proved to be particularly brutal when it suited them, for instance, in Ireland especially at Drogheda and Wexford in 1649. The Earl of Newcastle’s White Coats had been cut down at Marston Moor as they had refused to surrender, whilst a thousand or so Royalists did become prisoners of war as a result of being defeated at Marston Moor. There were examples of surrendered soldiers being treated well as prisoners of war such as the Parliamentary garrison of Bristol after its capture by the forces of Prince Rupert. There were also atrocities such as the sack of Leicester by Prince Rupert’s army as well as the capture of Drogheda and Wexford by the New Model Army. Such events did not usually lead to the capture of prisoners of war at all. On balance the Royalists seemed more likely to treat prisoners of war well yet that was not guaranteed. The stunning victory of the New Model Army at Naseby led to the capture of thousands of Royalist prisoners of war that were publicly humiliated in London. Some of the Royalist prisoners of war from Naseby had wives that were killed when New Model Army soldiers had killed the women attached to the Royalist pay train.

Bibliography

Abbott W C, Writings and Speeches Of Oliver Cromwell (1937) Cambridge, Massachusetts

Ashley, M. The English Civil War (1990) 2nd edition, Alan Sutton Publishing

Brice, K. Access to History- The Early Stuarts 1603-1640 (1994)

Hodder & Stoughton, London

Bulstrode R, Memoirs (1971)

Carlin, N. Historical Association Studies – The Causes of the

English Civil War (1999) Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Oxford.

Reformation, Harlow

Dodds, G. L. Battles in Britain 1066 – 1746 (1996) Brockhampton Press

Fairfax T, Memoirs (1837)

Foard G, Nasby – the decisive campaign (2004) Pen & Sword Military, Barnsley

Fraser, A. Cromwell Our Chief of Men (1973) Weidenfeld & Nicholson, London

Fraser R, A people’s History of Britain, (20040 Pimlico, London

Gardiner & Wenborn The History Today Companion to British

History (1995) Collins and Brown Ltd, London

Mercurius Civicus, 12th-18th June 1645, quoted in Foard

Mercurius Pragmaticus, 2 October 1648, quoted in Foard

Mercurius Pragmaticus, 3 January 1649, quoted in Foard

Poulsen, C. the English rebels (1984) The Journeyman Press,

London & New York

Royale T, Civil War – The Wars of the Three kingdoms 1638 – 1660 (2004) Abacus, London

Schama, S. A History of Britain – The British Wars 1603-1776

(2001), BBC Worldwide, London

Smith, D.L, Oliver Cromwell – Politics and Religion in the English Revolution, 1640 – 1658 (1991) Cambridge University Press

Smith, A G R the Emergence of a Nation State the Commonwealth of England 1529-1660 (1997) 2nd edition Longman, London and New

York

www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Sherwood R, The Civil War in the Midlands (1997) Stroud

Hirst D, England in Conflict 1603 – 1660 (1999) Arnold, London

Kenyon J & Ohlmeyer J, The Civil War – A Military History of England, Scotland, and Ireland (1998), Oxford University Press, Oxford

MacCulloch D, Reformation – Europe’s House Divided (2004) Penguin Books, London

reprinted (1990) Penguin Books London

Chadwick, O. The Penguin History of the Church 3 The

Coffey, J. Persecution and Toleration in Protestant England 1558-1689 – Studies in Modern History (2000), Pearson Education Ltd,