Author Topic: manchester in the civil war 1642  (Read 5980 times)

arthurchappell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
manchester in the civil war 1642
« on: 14:26:43, 02/01/07 »
New here, though I have several pages relating to Manchester, where I live including www.arthurchappell.clara.net/thecivilwarinmanchester.htm More Manchester material at www.arthurchappell.clara.net/contents12manchester.htm I look forward to reading the posts here - best wishes, AC
Arthur Chappell, writer,  Civil War Re-enactor, ex-cult member, socialite  http://arthurchappell.me.uk/

Facebook - http://profile.to/arthurchappell/

RAB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
Re: manchester in the civil war 1642
« Reply #1 on: 11:42:43, 01/08/07 »
Do I need to read these since I just bought your book ( but haven't received it yet ) ?  :)

arthurchappell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
Re: manchester in the civil war 1642
« Reply #2 on: 17:18:26, 01/08/07 »
Do I need to read these since I just bought your book ( but haven't received it yet ) ?  :)
  No,  you don'thave to - they include shorter versions of what is in the book. You will get a  much more comprehensive version.
Arthur Chappell, writer,  Civil War Re-enactor, ex-cult member, socialite  http://arthurchappell.me.uk/

Facebook - http://profile.to/arthurchappell/

RAB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
Re: manchester in the civil war 1642
« Reply #3 on: 17:48:03, 01/08/07 »
Arthur, what you have researched and put online sounds fascinating enough already, if I can find a paper on the alleged 'Poll Tax' I will send it to you one day
RAB

arthurchappell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
Re: manchester in the civil war 1642
« Reply #4 on: 19:01:26, 01/08/07 »
Thanks RAB - you may also like my online re-enactment diaries http://www.arthurchappell.clara.net/skbattles.htm
Arthur Chappell, writer,  Civil War Re-enactor, ex-cult member, socialite  http://arthurchappell.me.uk/

Facebook - http://profile.to/arthurchappell/

RAB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
Re: manchester in the civil war 1642
« Reply #5 on: 19:36:05, 01/08/07 »
Battle Tactics and how troops were trained and organised is not something I have looked into yet
I presume mercenaries were brought in from overseas with military experience of their own, depending who could afford resources or training facilities
We need a board game to learn the various battles and interconnected skirmishes and purpose !!  :-\

arthurchappell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
Re: manchester in the civil war 1642
« Reply #6 on: 20:04:51, 01/08/07 »
Battle Tactics and how troops were trained and organised is not something I have looked into yet
I presume mercenaries were brought in from overseas with military experience of their own, depending who could afford resources or training facilities
We need a board game to learn the various battles and interconnected skirmishes and purpose !!  :-\
  There are a few board games out there, but I haven't played any -  there were mercenaries on both sides, though they were hard to find in Europe which had its own 30 Years War running in parallel to the English conflict - The Royalists had more foriegn support, but Montrose failed to take Scotland with the inexperienced Danish forces he brought over in 1650.  many men went to war untrained,and many without proper uniforms, or boots. Some of the Irish who helped the Scots had no weapons  until they took them from the enemy dead.  Training was available for the Trained Bands (town civil defence soldiers) and more regularly in the highly effiecent New Model army from 1644 onwards but mostly, men went in with little training. The main battles were (in order) Edgehill, Marston Moor, Naseby and Worcester, though there are countless smaller battles, skirmishes, and massacres. Re-enactment and reading can be more informative than gaming - where you still need to study the books too.  Many re-enactors don't study the history too. AC
Arthur Chappell, writer,  Civil War Re-enactor, ex-cult member, socialite  http://arthurchappell.me.uk/

Facebook - http://profile.to/arthurchappell/

RAB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
Re: manchester in the civil war 1642
« Reply #7 on: 22:52:36, 01/08/07 »
A Civil War, presumably by definition then, is basically an internal peace-time outbreak of conflict, without sufficient warning to plan ahead in detail, or simply using regular forces of militia, which in either case, in this unique circumstance, may have no particular set-in-stone allegiance and may have lacked motivation to act swiftly
Throughout history this story must have been repeated and dealt with many times  before, from the beginnings of European democracy, under the guidance of the Frenchman, Simon de Montfort, who, 400 years earlier, organised baronial opposition against the rule of King Henry III
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_de_Montfort,_6th_Earl_of_Leicester
All the way upto today and current petty-minded but plausible demands for the complete dissolution of the monarchy with its inherited priviledges and tabloid-illuminated peccadillo's
« Last Edit: 23:04:49, 01/08/07 by RAB »

arthurchappell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
Re: manchester in the civil war 1642
« Reply #8 on: 23:55:16, 01/08/07 »
A Civil War, presumably by definition then, is basically an internal peace-time outbreak of conflict, without sufficient warning to plan ahead in detail, or simply using regular forces of militia, which in either case, in this unique circumstance, may have no particular set-in-stone allegiance and may have lacked motivation to act swiftly
Throughout history this story must have been repeated and dealt with many times  before, from the beginnings of European democracy, under the guidance of the Frenchman, Simon de Montfort, who, 400 years earlier, organised baronial opposition against the rule of King Henry III
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_de_Montfort,_6th_Earl_of_Leicester
All the way upto today and current petty-minded but plausible demands for the complete dissolution of the monarchy with its inherited priviledges and tabloid-illuminated peccadillo's
  The ECW was expected for some time - both sides were rallying people tothe cause for some time and it affected ordinary people more than other civil wars, such as the Wars Of The Roses, which ended at Bosworth - whole populations were drawn into the conflict - the levy often demanded that one in four able bodied men signed up - anyone trying to stayy neutral risked accusation of supporting the enemy. - the repurcussions for republicans is very strong - the European kings were fearful after Charles died, though it would be some time before the French Revolution.
Arthur Chappell, writer,  Civil War Re-enactor, ex-cult member, socialite  http://arthurchappell.me.uk/

Facebook - http://profile.to/arthurchappell/

RAB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
Re: manchester in the civil war 1642
« Reply #9 on: 09:19:47, 02/08/07 »
Thanks Arthur, I was somehow forgetting the 'Wars of Roses' at the end of the 100 years war with France
No doubt French royals had a finger in the 'Roses War' too because the defeat of the feudal baronial armies would weaken any future threat to France and so England was left without any organised ground army until Cromwell came along nearly two hundred years later ?  :-\

arthurchappell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
Re: manchester in the civil war 1642
« Reply #10 on: 20:30:24, 02/08/07 »
The War Of The Roses ended at Bosworth Field in 1485  with the death of Richard 3rd - The Civil War officially started in 1642 - Cromwell  was there from the outset but only starts to become important in 1644 with his radical ideas for reforming the cavalry, and giving the infantry better training, and drawing everyone under a single command  rather than having each commander operating as an independent team leader which often caused men to get in one another's way.  Charles married a French Catholic queen, Henrietta Marie to improve relations with France and show that England would not interfere in the 30 years War any longer - mostly as Charles couldn't afford it and the assassinated Buckingham's  involvement had embarressed him.
Arthur Chappell, writer,  Civil War Re-enactor, ex-cult member, socialite  http://arthurchappell.me.uk/

Facebook - http://profile.to/arthurchappell/

RAB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
Re: manchester in the civil war 1642
« Reply #11 on: 09:48:31, 03/08/07 »
I am really not much good at seeing the bigger picture, but Looking into the history of armed forces structure using website information  :-
http://www.regiments.org/about/faq/royalsvc.htm
I see we had a long history of a royal navy, organised and owned by Henry VIII and this co-existed with a civil navy force in those days
The land armies, however were less well organised, presumably since the supression of the baronial feudal system at the end of the '100 years war' and raised on an 'as-needs' basis, until Cromwell created his well-known 'model army' and after the restoration of monarchy a new army was formed, consisting of a mixture of royal and parliamentary troops, there was no unified command and a number of regiments exist, even up to  today, with sort of tribal loyalties....


arthurchappell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
Re: manchester in the civil war 1642
« Reply #12 on: 10:05:40, 03/08/07 »
There were a lotof private armies given that most ofthe gentry could raise a force intheir command, and then allythemselves to whichever causetheywished in the Civil War - many  men found themselves onthe wrong side - when Lord Kilpont in Scotland started out for the Covenenters, and then changed sides to serve Montrose , he tried to take his men with him, but one man rebelled and killed him and went back to the Parliament side, - such mutinies were common - many soldiers found themselves given no food or pay and reacted accordingly - The New Model was disciplined enough and drew enough different armies together underone banner to avoid that - though Cromwell and fairfax did face the Leveler rebellion when John Lillburne tried to do away with rank and priveledge in favourof an equal footing democratic army. The oter armies were town trained band groups in many major towns,  - a civil defence team drawn to the attack - manywere reluctant to fight outside oftheir own neighborhoods though asthe war advanced, they were forced into it.
Arthur Chappell, writer,  Civil War Re-enactor, ex-cult member, socialite  http://arthurchappell.me.uk/

Facebook - http://profile.to/arthurchappell/

RAB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
Re: manchester in the civil war 1642
« Reply #13 on: 11:16:56, 03/08/07 »
I was under the impression that royal consent was needed to raise armies in the first place and when this was broken by Parliament raising its own militia bill then this was the main start of the outbreak of Civil War
The existing militia seem to have been a force that Parliamentarians managed to gain control with their own officers or generals approved by Parliament and thus to threaten the King with until he could raise an army of his own
So, the lack of a personal royal army was the first defect in the system, surely ?
When the Navy sided with Parliament Continental assistance would be more difficult and Charles lacked the financial ability to engage much mercenary help internally ?



arthurchappell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
Re: manchester in the civil war 1642
« Reply #14 on: 11:30:55, 03/08/07 »
I was under the impression that royal consent was needed to raise armies in the first place and when this was broken by Parliament raising its own militia bill then this was the main start of the outbreak of Civil War
The existing militia seem to have been a force that Parliamentarians managed to gain control with their own officers or generals approved by Parliament and thus to threaten the King with until he could raise an army of his own
So, the lack of a personal royal army was the first defect in the system, surely ?
When the Navy sided with Parliament Continental assistance would be more difficult and Charles lacked the financial ability to engage much mercenary help internally ?

yes, that was a cause - there were several - Parliament refused to be dissolved, the King's Catholic interests and wife, severe taxations, the Grand Remonstrance, threat to impeach the Queen, the flight of five mp's whhen Charles tried to arrest them etc. - The king himself had no direct army, - just a body-guard division - he relied on loyal, mostly family allies to rally to his support, Getting past the Parliament navy was dangerous - the queen was bombarded on herarms and men and money raising trip to Europe, or rather on her return voyage mostly empty handed. Internal mercenaries|? a lot of people ran their own agendas, especially in Scotland where clans went to war to settle old scores using royalist or covenant support largely as an excuse - Montrose was frustrated when his men went off to fight their own battles or take the spoils of war home before rejoining him. A lot of people profiteered from the war, Humphrey Chetham in Manchester put his financial interests first



Arthur Chappell, writer,  Civil War Re-enactor, ex-cult member, socialite  http://arthurchappell.me.uk/

Facebook - http://profile.to/arthurchappell/