Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
All For Nothing?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by youngjerry (U7266788) on Wednesday, 16th June 2010
Is it true to say that the English Civil war:
Was fought for nothing..That people died for nothing..And that nothing was achieved by the execution of Charles First? -
Message 2
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Wednesday, 16th June 2010
The war did at least, albeit temporarily, get rid of a terrible tyrant and establish a more just regime.
That being said, Tim Harris observed in a recent book that someone who had gone to sleep before the civil wars and woken up after the restoration would have seen little that had changed - it took the Glorious Revolution to complete the good work. -
Message 3
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Wednesday, 16th June 2010
but when they awoke there was not such a belief in the divine right of kings
after the civil war they had to think before they acted (kings that is )
st -
Message 4
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Wednesday, 16th June 2010
I'm not so sure about that, Stalti. I've never read anything to suggest that Charles II was any less convinced of the DRoK than his pops, and Parliament was hardly more powerful under him than it had been before the Civil Wars. It's just that Charles II wasn't so politically inept and was more cunning in his use of terror against his subjects.
-
Message 5
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Thursday, 17th June 2010
I agree with that but I think that the importance of the Civil War was that there was a conscious desire on most, if not all, sides, at least outside Scotland and Ireland, to avoid a repetition of it which accounts for both the Restoration in 1660 and the Glorious Revolution of 1688.
-
Message 6
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Thursday, 17th June 2010
I'm still thinking this issue through, Allan, but what you're saying is pretty much in line with what I understand is Oxford Prof Blair Worden's analysis. He sees the Civil Wars and regicide as having left at least the English people with a deep-seated mistrust of radical change.
-
Message 7
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Thursday, 17th June 2010
I think 'nothing changed' is true, in that day-to-day life the world of Charles II was very similar to that in the world of Charles I. The man who fell asleep before the war would not see much difference.
I think 'everything changed' is also true, in the mindset of the people. Everyone had that knowledge in their head - we beat the King in a war, and cut his head off! And By God, we'll do it again, if we have to! OK, it was not a great success, and they were reluctant to do it again, but the precedent had been set, the taboo broken, so the mind of man was never quite the same afterwards.
The fact that it happened laid the foundation upon which the 1688 revolution was built - we will have a say in who is our king, and have him guarantee our rights before we accept him! -
Message 8
Posted by Poldertijger (U11154078) on Friday, 18th June 2010
Hello Jerry,
I don't think that the English Civil War was fought for nothing. The English parliaments during the reign of Charles I resisted the King's wish to grant him the means to bear the costs of a standing army. When Monk declared to be in favour of Charles II Cromwell's new model army was abandoned. This was exactly according to the wishes of the parliaments during Charles' I reign.
Besides, the English parliament had learned to fight for principles, rather than prerogatives and favours.
Regards,
Poldertijger -
Message 9
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 18th June 2010
At the end of the Civil War and Commonwealth period Lord Clarendon urged that the times called for a return to the tradition of "good-naturedness" for which England had long been famous... I dealt with this some time ago in the thread "The Roots of the Modern World" for even during the Middle Ages it was well-known that in England religious persecution was nothing like on the continent.
I also wrote a piece when Gordon Brown succeeded to his position as chief executive in London entitled "Thoughts on a Third Scottish Succcession" in which I pointed out that on two previous occasions when the English had found themselves with a Scottish executive power by succession or accession the difficulty that Scots sometimes have in understanding how England works and how to make it work successfully had ultimately a produced a revolution.
The Stuart succession created the dynamics that led to the "English Civil War", and the accession of the Scottish educated George III, still under the influence of his teacher Lord Bute, produced the Wilkes and Liberty movements and the American Revolution.
Unpopularity of Gordon Brown produced the current "Tory revolution" based not upon Mr Brown's Scottish "carrot and stick" approach, but on a Clarendon type appeal to partnership, good naturedness, civic responsibility and democratic aspirations in terms of encouraging the active participation of all of those who wished to approach the old English idea of "commonweal" in a spirit of inclusiveness.
It was, however, the Glorious Bloodless Revolution of 1688-9 that brought Clarendon's grand-daughter to a throne that she shared with her Dutch husband that really put English government on a solid footing.
Cass -
Message 10
Posted by BashfulAnthony (U10740638) on Friday, 16th July 2010
Most wars are fought for nothing, excepting perhaps the Hitler war. WW1 was surely the most pointless war in history by a country mile. The English Civil War attained nothing that would not have transpired in the fullness of time. -
Message 11
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 16th July 2010
Bashful Anthony
There was an old legend going round in the teaching profession.
A teacher was sent to take a class that he did not know, and it was obvious at a glance that they were "terrible".. So he surveyed the class and picked on one child who was being relatively inocuous. He tore into this child and reduced him to tears with his ferocity. The rest of the class were astonished thinking that if the teacher did that to the pupil who was not behaving too badly, what would he do when he got round to them? They decided not to risk it.
Many wars, therefore, have been calculated to prove that the newcomer is not to be trifled with.. A feature of the monarchical period was that the government of child-kings, or adult Kings who had never proven themselves in battle often resulted in some "testing of the waters" by countries traditionally hostile.
More recently it is generally accepted that Krushchev saw J.F.K. as a young "rich-kid" who was inexperienced. The Cuban Missile Crisis fortunately did not escalate into war, but only because of Mutually Assured Destruction.
So many wars have been played out for the benefit of third parties. In British history the ability of the English to counter any developing threat from the Welsh, Scots or Irish- or the inability- sent messages to France and Spain.
Cass -
Message 12
Posted by BashfulAnthony (U10740638) on Friday, 16th July 2010
CASSEROLEON,
HI,
So many wars have been played out for the benefit of third partiesÌý
Agreed, but such politics are played out to counter perceived danger, and like dogs barking at each other it is usually bluff, and invariably when resulting in war it is unnecesary and achieves nothing lasting. Churchill was right - "jaw, jaw, jaw; not war, war, war." -
Message 13
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 16th July 2010
BashfulAnthony
I am not sure that your position actually holds good outside of the period since 1945 when the might of the USA has actually ensured that really only minor wars- apologies to all killed, but the capacity of the USA was to make the 55 million of the 2WW seem paltry.. With people in high places who were credibly crazy enough to push the button, and the United Nations using "military action" in the name of the global community, insecurity of the Cold War gradually gave way to a community of interest between the wealthy nations, and those growing wealthy... and so the illusion goes on.
The historical reality in Europe is surely that it was the capacity to wage war effectivley that helped Europe to emerge from the "Dark Ages".. The Feudal System tied militarism to land, stability on Earth, and access to Heaven through the Church.
The next age, the Age of the State, was connected with another "leap forward" in military capability, connected with a decline in the belief in the power of the Church to get people to Heaven, and a greater belief that people could get their through their own steam behind the Fortress walls of military capability. That capability was intimately connectec with (a) the growth of financial institutions and instruments, and (b) the way that science and technology increased the power of States.
The age of the State, as C. Deslisle Burns said the Europe of the State only avoided more or less tearing itself to pieces through the possibility of directing its energies outwards in global expansion. But the truth is that this vitality, and this apparent ability to control events in the short and medium term has made it possible for the number of people on Earth to increase by a major factor since say 1500.
I sometimes wonder whether we have reached the point when there are more people alive now, than the total number of 'homo sapiens' who have lived and died before.
Cass -
Message 14
Posted by Poldertijger (U11154078) on Monday, 19th July 2010
Re: message 11.
Hello Cass,
You have failed to read your classics. If you had read the Beano, you would have noticed that notwithstanding the beatings with which teacher Quayle dealt the thugs, they kept coming back. -
Message 15
Posted by Poldertijger (U11154078) on Monday, 19th July 2010
Re: message 10.
Hello BashfulAnthony,
You write:
The English Civil War attained nothing that would not have transpired in the fullness of time.Ìý
The contemporaries of the Long Parliament wouldn’t have thought so. The king wanted a standing army. The parliamentary members knew that the standing armies in Spain and France had made it possible for their kings to do away with parliament. The English members of parliament were not going to let that happen standing idly by. -
Message 16
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 19th July 2010
Poldertijgr
Exactly the point that I wished to make.. The Civil War showed as only a war could the potency of a modern and professional army backed by a major financial power- London. But the control of the purse strings which had been the basis of the English people's hold over the monarchy, was also the key to making sure that the army accepted its role as the sevant of the people, and not just operate a protection racket as a standing army and the first call on the National Wealth, as happened and happens in many other countries.
It even applied to the First and Second World Wars that Britain entered both without the military capabilities of the Great Powers, as far as land and then air forces were concerned; but built on traditional experience to create the necessary forces at time of National Need.
In a way Britain, therefore, pioneered "just in time" production methods before the Japanese.
Cass -
Message 17
Posted by BashfulAnthony (U10740638) on Wednesday, 21st July 2010
The contemporaries of the Long Parliament wouldn’t have thought so. The king wanted a standing army. The parliamentary members knew that the standing armies in Spain and France had made it possible for their kings to do away with parliament. The English members of parliament were not going to let that happen standing idly by. Ìý
Hi, Poldertijger.
I don't think that Charles would ever have had the power or influence to create a standing army here. In fact, as events proved, he did not possess the support needed to achieve any of his aims. I think our Parliamentiary system would have evolved naturally in the fullness of time. The war was yet another futile exercise in macho posturing. -
Message 18
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Wednesday, 21st July 2010
BashfulAnthony
Yet the harsh military lessons that were learned resulted in England being able to take a leading role in the Grand Alliance that defeated Louis XIV's ambitions to be the Sun King of Europe as well as France..[As it was later to do against Napoleon, Kaiser Willhelm and Adolf Hitler].
The New Model Army, and the financing of it, along with the improvements in the British Navy, meant that England, and then Britain, was able to retain a large degree of control over its own destiny.
This was crucial for many things, including the development of the various parts of the Finance Industry. Without that military capability to keep England as a fortress it is not really conceivable that the Bank of England would have been able to create the National Debt, or that those who frequented Lloyd's would have been able to insure the risks of British and then later global commerce, and thus make possible the development of the world economy over the next 300 years. Insurance is not only part of "invisible trade",it is something that people are often lucky enough to forget all about- as long as they have it, and it works.
It is of course possible to imagine that it might have been preferable without these developments, but it is very difficult to see how anything like the change of the last 300 years could have been achieved without secure foundations-- and ultimately security has to be a physical reality, which means being capable of dealing with physical threats.
Cass -
Message 19
Posted by Poldertijger (U11154078) on Thursday, 22nd July 2010
Hello BashfulAnthony,
You write:
I don't think that Charles would ever have had the power or influence to create a standing army here. Ìý
I don't see why not. William of Orange had a standing army and he was a foreigner. The Long Parliament had a standing army. Why would Charles not have been able to gather a standing army unless he was thwarted in his attempts?
You write:
In fact, as events proved, he did not possess the support needed to achieve any of his aims.Ìý
Charles was thwarted in his attempts to gather a standing army by the standing army of the Long Parliament. In fact Charles possessed such a considerable support that was able to deliver several severe blows to the army of the Long Parliament. The army of the Long Parliament had to be remodelled into the New Model Army.
You write:
I think our Parliamentiary system would have evolved naturally in the fullness of time. Ìý
The truth of the matter is that yet another Stuart had to be dethroned to give the English people the Bill of Rights. There was nothing peaceful in the realization of the British parliamentary system, nor could it have been peaceful.
Regards,
Poldertijger -
Message 20
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Thursday, 22nd July 2010
Poldertijgr
England had no "standing army"..William III operated within the Revolution Settlement of 1688-9 established that Parliamentary consent would have to be given annually in order for the Crown forces to continue to function within the law... Only on that basis could the armed forces and English foreign policy be backed by the strength of the British economy.. and, as I have explained, previously- the British economy gained in credibility and many other ways by this close relationship between the forces of wealth generation and those that protected England/Britain's material security.
On a personal level the problems of lack of security mixing with wealth were highlighted in an incident someone told me about last week.. Her sister was visiting Jamiaca and she saw someone driving a flasy open-topped car with his arm casually posed on the door. Suddenly she saw someone leap forward with a machete and chop off his arm. The assailant proceded to pick up the severed arm, take off the rings on its fingers and ran off.
As I have said before, in so many places we are fortunate to know that the force of the law means that we regard security as something that we are just entitled to.
Cass -
Message 21
Posted by Poldertijger (U11154078) on Friday, 23rd July 2010
Re: message 20.
Hello Css,
You're right; Somers tried to introduce a standing army at several occasions between 1695 and 1697, but he was never able to overcome the opposition of Harley.
Rgards,
Poldertijger -
Message 22
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 23rd July 2010
Poldertijigr
Thanks for that...
To expand upon my previous comment, there are people who seem to think that rights of ownership actually exist in law without any reference to real power. So the argument is often used that Imperialism etc robbed people of their land.. But ownership derived from "tenure"-meaning having a firm hold onto; and there is the old saying "possession is nine tenths of the law". Kingdoms emerged as Kings "held" from God, and bestowed rights of holding, which were then sub-let, etc. It all stemmed from the power of the Crown to impose its will.
To possess something is to have it under your control and to have the capability of stopping someone else from just walking away with it.. This may require having the capability of denying access or entry to the would be appropriator, or failing that the capability of stopping them from taking "your" things into their own possession.
My experience as a teacher goes along with my reading of history. Many of the most gentle and peaceful pupils that I taught were giants whose very obvious physical attributes put off anyone who might even have been tempted to "mess them around." Participation in sports revealed just what they were capable of. So the boys who ended up getting involved in fights were those who appeared to have no real ability to stick up for themselves.
I think that both the Netherlands and England at a crucial period in the evolution of the Europe of the State had to prove themselves capable in just the same way.. And in so doing they developed revolutionary new devices in science, technology and finance that turned their compactness into a strength that larger States could not match.
But England/Britain's experience throughout history is that military capability is sapped by long periods of peace. In the Crimean War no-one in the army less than about seventy years of age had actual front line experience.
Cass -
Message 23
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Friday, 23rd July 2010
But England/Britain's experience throughout history is that military capability is sapped by long periods of peace. In the Crimean War no-one in the army less than about seventy years of age had actual front line experience.
Ìý
Hi Cass,
Not entirely true, Colin Campbell (comander of the Highland Brigade - some of whom gave rise to the immortal phrase "thin red line") had plenty of experience in India. And there was plenty of experience to be had - British regiments were very much at war between 1815 and 1854. However, the social structure of the British Army conspired to keep most competant officers in unfashionable wars of the Empire and then away from the trendy european war.
It's probably fair to say most senior commanders would have been weeded out if they'd been involved in wars after 1815.
Though regardless of the semantic details, the Crimean War was a shambles from start to finish for the British Army, and even more embarassing in contrast to the French!
Jason -
Message 24
Posted by Sixtus Beckmesser (U9635927) on Friday, 23rd July 2010
" the Crimean War was a shambles from start to finish for the British Army,"
In terms of organisation, commissariat and supply, staff work and command at high level, I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
But the fighting quality and discipline of the troops (field officers and rank-and-file) was frequently shown to be outstanding: the storming of the Great Redoubt at the Alma; the "thin red line", Heavy Brigade and, yes, the conduct of the Light Brigade in the actual charge; the sandbag battery at Inkermann. They all attest to the high quality of the British soldier in the Crimea. -
Message 25
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 23rd July 2010
cloudyj
Yes. I was thinking particularly of those who Christopher Hibbert could see being alternatives to Lord Raglan as comander in chief.
As for "the Crimean shambles" I was somewhat surprised on reading Hibbert recently, that contrary to that commonly held idea, the Crimean War suffered from its spectacular inititial success, as Hibbert tells it: and I think that there is a very salutary lesson to be learned about the intervention of public opinion and politicians in the serious business of war, of which most of them know nothing.
The Anglo-French expedition was sent to deal with a Russian incursion into the Danube Plains, and this was accomplished with relatively little loss of life on either side. The Russians withdrew. This initial success of British arms then led to a public outcry that soon resonated through Parliament that, while we had forces out there, really they should go further. Russia would continue to threaten the British view of how the Black Sea "should be" as long as Russia held Sebastopol. What happened then was a classic example of what I believe is called "mission drift".
This seems to be a real danger when Governments do not have right at their heart someone with a real strategic sense. During the war of the Spanish Succession, for most of the time, the Duke of Marlborough was fortunate in having his wife Sarah as the Queen's intimate friend. I was interested to read that as a wealthy Dowager this Mrs Churchill financed William Pitt, the future Lord Chatham, and achitect of the "annus mirabilis" in the Seven Years War. And Winston Churchill, for all his mistakes and blunders that are inevitable in war, provided that kind of strategic insight during the 2WW.
But Lord Raglan in the Crimea, after his mission had been accomplished, was sent to try to take Sebastopol more or less as an afterthought: and it ended up as a shambles because success in war, as I learned from a teenage study of the Blenheim campaign, demands knowledge, forethought, planning etc.
Cass -
Message 26
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Friday, 23rd July 2010
Sixtus,
Of course, you're right about the common British soldier - they fought with great bravery and tenacity despite the appalling supply and command problems. -
Message 27
Posted by Sixtus Beckmesser (U9635927) on Friday, 23rd July 2010
"Of course, you're right about the common British soldier - they fought with great bravery and tenacity despite the appalling supply and command problems. "
Agreed! And not just the comon soldiery - by-and-large the field officers come out of the Crimea with considerable credit. However, precious few of the senior officers do. Campbell, Scarlett (who was almsot unique in appreciating his deficiencies and surrounding himself with experienced staff officers) and (bizarrely, given his later military conservatism) the Duke of Cambridge seem to be pretty much the only generals whose reputations were in any way enhanced. -
Message 28
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Friday, 23rd July 2010
The Anglo-French expedition was sent to deal with a Russian incursion into the Danube Plains, and this was accomplished with relatively little loss of life on either side. The Russians withdrew. This initial success of British arms Ìý
The war did indeed suffer from the fact that the war aims were really achieved before the Western powers had fired a shot.
I would query whether the Russian withdrawal had anything to do with British arms however. More the threat of Austria attacking Russian supply lines. The Russian commander Paskevich explained tghe reason fro withdrawal: "We can not occupy the Principalities if Austria with its 60,000 appears on our rear.In such a case we will be forced to abandon Wallachia and Moldavia and have on our hands 1000,000 Frenchmen and Turks." (from Alexis Troubetzkoy's The Crimean War) -
Message 29
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 23rd July 2010
cloudyj
Agreed the Russian withdrawal was not the result of any great intimidation... But then neither was the subsequent negotiated end of the affair, which I seem to recall was stitched up by direct negotiations by the Turkish and Russian Empires quite independently of British or French input.
I was responding to the "complete shambles" evaluation.. Though there were no doubt lessons to be learned from the first phase, had they force been recalled when the objective had been achieved people might look back on the episode as a land-based example of "send in the gunboats" foreign policy.
The Falklands Conflict is surely an example of what can happen when a foreign power becomes convinced that no credible action will be taken should they "try it on."
As my neighbour just commented, having shared her delight at being able to take her St Lucian born Mum to a Buckingham Palace garden party yesterday, the youth today are too "brazen" because they have too often "tried it on" with impunity.
Cass
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.