DOCSLIB.ORG

Assessment Week 20Th November the Civil War and the Interregnum The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Assessment Week 20Th November the Civil War and the Interregnum The Year 8 revision- Autumn Term- Assessment week 20th November The Civil War and the Interregnum The English Civil War Charles came to the throne in 1625. Relations between Charles I and Parliament gradually got worse until a Civil War Erupted in 1642. Long term causes of the Civil War included: Charles ‘character, Charles economic issues, the impact of his religious decisions and the problems he faced with Scotland. Until 1640, Charles ruled without a Parliament – the 'Eleven Years' Tyranny'. Ultimately these issues between Charles I and parliament are what caused tension between the two sides which eventually boiled over into conflict. War with Scotland forced Charles to recall Parliament. Instead of granting Charles money, Parliament sent him the Grand Remonstrance (1641). This was a list of 204 complaints about the way he was running the country. After Charles had tried and failed to arrest the five leaders of the Parliament, a Civil War broke out, when Charles decided he would defeat parliament and force them to agree to his style of rule. The English Civil War started in 1642 when Charles I raised his royal standard in Nottingham. The split between Charles and Parliament was such that neither side was willing to back down over the principles that they held and war was inevitable as a way in which all problems could be solved. There were only three major battles in the English Civil War – Edge Hill (1642) Marston Moor (1644) and Naseby (1645), most other battles that occurred were minor fights between small groups of Royalists and Parliamentarians. While it is difficult to give an exact breakdown of who supported who as there were regional variations, at a general level the nobility, landowners and Anglicans supported Charles I while those in the towns and cities supported Parliament. The Cavaliers, supporters of Charles, had the advantage at first due to better equipment and training. However this changed with the introduction of the New Model Army. This new Model Army, led by Oliver Cromwell, was better equipped, with better tactics, meaning that the Roundheads had a better chance against the Cavaliers. In 1644, Charles lost control of the north of England as a result of a major defeat at the Battle of Marston Moor. The combined armies of Parliament and the Scots heavily defeated the Royalists. In June 1645, Cromwell’s New Model Army inflicted a fatal blow to the king’s army at the Battle of Naseby. Charles did not recover from this defeat and his cause was lost. In 1646, Charles surrendered to the Scots rather than to Parliament. The Scots took advantage of Charles and sold him to Parliament for £400,000 in January 1647. The problem Parliament now had was what to do with Charles. The king actually helped in his own downfall. In November 1647, he escaped to Carisbrooke Castle on the Isle of Wight and in 1648 the short-lived second civil war broke out. The supporters of the king were defeated at Preston. All that Charles had proved to Parliament was that he could not be trusted. In January 1649 Charles was found guilty of declaring war against parliament and was executed on January 30th 1649. Oliver Cromwell and the Interregnum- Why do Historians judge him differently? Oliver Cromwell rose from the middle ranks of English society to be Lord Protector of England, Scotland and Ireland, the only non-royal ever to hold that position. He played a leading role in bringing Charles I to trial and to execution; he undertook the most complete and the most brutal military conquest ever undertaken by the English over their neighbours; he championed a degree of religious freedom otherwise unknown in England before the last one hundred years. He was - and remains - one of the most contentious figures in world history Many people see Cromwell as a leading figure with many positive characteristics Cromwell the War Hero Many people at the time describe Cromwell as a Hero, for introducing the New Model Army and playing a major role at the victories against Charles Royalist forces. People saw Cromwell as the leading commander who defeated the King and there is evidence to suggest his leadership of the Cavalry at important battles such as Naseby helped the parliamentarians to victory. Never took the crown, even when offered- He always refused to be king, even when many MP’S and parliament wanted him to take the throne. Destroyed the power of the king – for which he is sometimes called the 'father of democracy', as he actually gave elected MP’S the chance to share their ideas on how the country should be run. He believed it should be on merit, not by social standing, which was a completely new idea that Cromwell introduced. This is why many refer to Cromwell as the ‘Father of Democracy’ as he started the democratic movement in the United Kingdom- where people have the right to vote for who they want to be in charge of them. Cromwell allows Jewish people into England- Cromwell allowed Jewish people to return to England, even though they had been previously expelled from England, showing that he could be religiously tolerant of others- a new step for a ruler. Believed in Parliament representing the people – He found a ‘Rump Parliament’ of MPs after the execution and was meant to rule in the interest of the people. Except they seemed determined to extend their rule indefinitely. Cromwell criticised them on the floor of the House of Commons for being self-serving and then his troops forcibly shut down Parliament. He replaced it with ‘the assembly of saints’, a nominated group of men he considered suitably puritan. But, when they too proved unsatisfactory, he had them removed as well. Through this he showed that he wanted parliament to truly serve the people. Yet many historians reflect on Cromwell negative characteristics: Massacre at Drogheda and Wexford- There had been problems in Ireland since the Catholic Irish had rebelled and massacred about 4,000 Protestants, but Parliament put the figure nearer 200,000. So Cromwell – who thought Catholic beliefs were wrong – went to do a "great work against the barbarous and bloodthirsty Irish". Cromwell captured Drogheda in September 1649. His troops massacred nearly 3,500 people, including 2,700 Royalist soldiers, all the men in the town with weapons and probably also some civilians, prisoners and priests. At the siege of Wexford in October 1649, 2,000 Irish soldiers and perhaps 1,500 civilians were killed. Many historians accuse Cromwell of giving land to Protestants and taking this from poor Catholics, killing civilians and transporting some Irish as slaves. Other historians say that he hanged soldiers who killed civilians and that Drogheda deserved to be punished as they did not surrender. Punishment of the Scots- When Charles II rose in Scotland to take his crown back Cromwell attempted to defeat the King. Cromwell finally engaged the new king at Worcester on 3 September 1651, and beat him killing 3,000 and taking 10,000 more prisoners. Many of the Scottish prisoners taken by Cromwell were sold into indentured labour in the West Indies and Virginia. People saw this as incredibly harsh. Religious issues- Being a puritan Cromwell believed in very strict practice, which he imposed on all of those within England, Wales and eventually Ireland. Catholicism was banned and those found to be catholic were punished. Puritan ideals, such as banning Christmas as this day was meant to be for prayer not celebrating, and restricting the sale of alcohol, as this prompted un-holy behaviour, meant that many people within the society did not like Cromwell’s reforms and changes. Personality- Many people see Cromwell as having many similar traits to Charles I. Liked to rule the country as singular figurehead, disbanded parliament when it was seen not to be working by force using the army and not listening to the views of many groups such as the levellers, even though they had helped him to power. This link between himself and Charles causes many to question if they were more similar than they had themselves thought. They also look to how Cromwell punished those who did not follow him as an example of his totalitarian, harsh style of rule which again had similarities of Charles I End of Cromwell His son Richard inherited the title of Lord Protector, but he could not control the army. So in 1660 Charles I’s son was restored to the throne. However the Restoration Settlement did not give back to the King financial control over the government and military. It was the start of the road to parliamentary democracy. This was Cromwell’s greatest legacy, Questions- Answer these in full sentences 1. When did Cromwell take power? 2. When was Charles executed? 3. What was the New Model Army? 4. What did Cromwell do in the Civil War? 5. Why did Cromwell not take the Crown? 6. Cromwell was Puritan- What does that mean? 7. What happened at Drogheda? 8. Why did some not like Cromwell religious changes? 9. Why do some say Cromwell was similar to Charles 10. Why did Cromwell disband parliament? 11. What is your personal opinion on Cromwell? P.E.E.L Paragraph- P.E.E.L Paragraph-Does Cromwell deserve to be remembered as a Great Leader- How far do you agree with this? Introduction- How you could agree- How you could disagree- Your own opinion _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pennsylvania Magazine of HISTORY and BIOGRAPHY
    THE Pennsylvania Magazine OF HISTORY AND BIOGRAPHY Governor John Blackwell: His Life in England and Ireland OHN BLACKWELL is best known to American readers as an early governor of Pennsylvania, the most recent account of his J governorship having been published in this Magazine in 1950. Little, however, has been written about his services to the Common- wealth government, first as one of Oliver Cromwell's trusted cavalry officers and, subsequently, as his Treasurer at War, a position of considerable importance and responsibility.1 John Blackwell was born in 1624,2 the eldest son of John Black- well, Sr., who exercised considerable influence on his son's upbringing and activities. John Blackwell, Sr., Grocer to King Charles I, was a wealthy London merchant who lived in the City and had a country house at Mortlake, on the outskirts of London.3 In 1640, when the 1 Nicholas B. Wainwright, "Governor John Blackwell," The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography (PMHB), LXXIV (1950), 457-472.I am indebted to Professor Wallace Notestein for advice and suggestions. 2 John Blackwell, Jr., was born Mar. 8, 1624. Miscellanea Heraldica et Genealogica, New Series, I (London, 1874), 177. 3 John Blackwell, Sr., was born at Watford, Herts., Aug. 25, 1594. He married his first wife Juliana (Gillian) in 1621; she died in 1640, and was buried at St. Thomas the Apostle, London, having borne him ten children. On Mar. 9, 1642, he married Martha Smithsby, by whom he had eight children. Ibid.y 177-178. For Blackwell arms, see J. Foster, ed., Grantees 121 122, W.
    [Show full text]
  • Cromwell's Strategic Vision 1643- 1644. the Royalist Garrison at Newark Was Not On
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Nottingham Trent Institutional Repository (IRep) “He would not meddle against Newark…” Cromwell’s strategic vision 1643- 1644. The royalist garrison at Newark was not only one of the most substantial and successful garrisons in England during the civil wars: its steadfast loyalty had a devastating effect on the military careers of several parliamentarian generals and colonels. Between 1643 and 1645 Newark was responsible for, or played a role in, the severe mauling and even the termination of the careers of no less than five parliamentarian generals. The careers of two major generals in command of local forces, Sir Thomas Ballard, Sir John Meldrum; three regional commanders, Thomas, Lord Grey of Groby, commander of the Midlands Association, Francis, Lord Willoughby of Parham, lord lieutenant of Lincolnshire and Edward Montague, Earl of Manchester commander of the Eastern Association all suffered because of it. Furthermore, it dented the ambitions, if not the careers of two parliamentarian governor- colonels: the Derby governor Sir John Gell and the Nottingham governor John Hutchinson. It is also true that being governor of Newark did little for the careers of three royalist officers who served in the role: Sir John Henderson (1642-1643), Richard Byron (1643-1644) and Sir John Willys (1644-1645). Most significantly from the perspective of this article, in the cases of at least three of the three aristocrat or magnate generals: Lord Grey of Groby, Lord Willoughby and the Earl of Manchester, Oliver Cromwell played an equally decisive role, alongside the midland garrison town, in terminating their field commissions.
    [Show full text]
  • Battle-Scarred: Surgery, Medicine and Military Welfare During the British Civil Wars Exhibition at the National Civil War Centre, Newark Museum
    CENTRE FOR ENGLISH CENTRE FOR ENGLISH LOCAL HISTORY LOCAL HISTORY Battle-Scarred: Surgery, Medicine and Military Welfare during the British Civil Wars Exhibition at the National Civil War Centre, Newark Museum Guest curators: Dr Eric Gruber von Arni and Dr Andrew Hopper This document was published in October 2017. The University of Leicester endeavours to ensure that the content of its prospectus, programme specification, website content and all other materials are complete and accurate. On occasion it may be necessary to make some alterations to particular aspects of a course or module, and where these are minor, for example altering the lecture timetable or location, then we will ensure that you have as much notice as possible of the change to ensure that the disruption to your studies is minimised. However, in exceptional circumstances Printed by Print Services, it may be necessary for the University to cancel or change a programme or part of the specification more substantially. For example, due to the University of Leicester, unavailability of key teaching staff, changes or developments in knowledge or teaching methods, the way in which assessment is carried out, using vegetable based inks or where a course or part of it is over-subscribed to the extent that the quality of teaching would be affected to the detriment of students. In on FSC certified stock these circumstances, we will contact you as soon as possible and in any event will give you 25 days written notice before the relevant change is due to take place. Where this occurs, we will also and in consultation with you, offer you an alternative course or programme (as appropriate) or the opportunity to cancel your contract with the University and obtain a refund of any advance payments that you have made.
    [Show full text]
  • The Royalist and Parliamentarian War Effort in Shropshire During the First and Second English Civil Wars, 1642-1648
    The Royalist and Parliamentarian War Effort in Shropshire During the First and Second English Civil Wars, 1642-1648 Item Type Thesis or dissertation Authors Worton, Jonathan Citation Worton, J. (2015). The royalist and parliamentarian war effort in Shropshire during the first and second English civil wars, 1642-1648. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Chester, United Kingdom. Publisher University of Chester Download date 24/09/2021 00:57:51 Item License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10034/612966 The Royalist and Parliamentarian War Effort in Shropshire During the First and Second English Civil Wars, 1642-1648 Thesis submitted in accordance with the requirements of The University of Chester For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy By Jonathan Worton June 2015 ABSTRACT The Royalist and Parliamentarian War Effort in Shropshire During the First and Second English Civil Wars, 1642-1648 Jonathan Worton Addressing the military organisation of both Royalists and Parliamentarians, the subject of this thesis is an examination of war effort during the mid-seventeenth century English Civil Wars by taking the example of Shropshire. The county was contested during the First Civil War of 1642-6 and also saw armed conflict on a smaller scale during the Second Civil War of 1648. This detailed study provides a comprehensive bipartisan analysis of military endeavour, in terms of organisation and of the engagements fought. Drawing on numerous primary sources, it explores: leadership and administration; recruitment and the armed forces; military finance; supply and logistics; and the nature and conduct of the fighting.
    [Show full text]
  • Cromwelliana 1993
    Cromwelliana 1993 The Cromwell Association The Cromwell Association CROMWELLIANA 1993 President: Dr JOHN MORRILL, DPhil, FRHistS Vice Presidents: Baron FOOT of Buckland Monachorurn Right Hon MICHAEL FOOT, PC edited by Peter Gaunt Dr MAURICE ASHLEY, CBE, DPhil, DLitt Professor IV AN ROOTS, MA, FSA, FRHistS ********** Professor AUSTIN WOOLRYCH, MA, DLitt. FBA Dr GERALD AYLMER, MA, DPhil, FBA, FRHistS CONTENTS Miss HILARY PLAIT, BA Mr TREWIN COPPLESTONE, FRGS Chairman: Dr PEfER GAUNT, PhD, FRHistS Cromwell Day 1992. Oliver Cromwell and the Godly Reformation. By Dr Barry Coward. 2 Honorary Secretary: Miss PAT BARNES Cosswell Cottage, Northedge, Tupton, Chesterfield, S42 6A Y Oliver Cromwell and the Battle of Gainsborough, Honorary Treasurer. Mr JOHN WESTMACOIT July 1643. By John West. 9 1 Salisbury Close, Wokingham, Berkshire, RGI l 4AJ Oliver Cromwell and the English Experience of Manreuvre THE CROMWELL ASSOCIATION was founded in 1935 by the late Rt Hon Isaac Foot Warfare 1645-1651. Part One. By Jonathan R Moore. 15 and others to commemorate Oliver Cromwell, the great Puritan stateman, and to encourage the study of the history of his times, his achievements and influence. It is The Diagnosis of Oliver Cromwell's Fatal Illness. neither political nor sectarian, its aims being essentially historical. The Association By Dr C H Davidson. 27 seeks to advance its aims in a variety of ways which have included: a. the erection of commemorative tablets (e.g. at Naseby, Dunbar, Worcester, Revolution and Restoration: The Effect on the Lives of Preston, etc) (From time to time appeals are made for funds to pay for projects of Ordinary Women.
    [Show full text]
  • [Note: This Series of Articles Was Written by Charles Kightly, Illustrated by Anthony Barton and First Published in Military Modelling Magazine
    1 [Note: This series of articles was written by Charles Kightly, illustrated by Anthony Barton and first published in Military Modelling Magazine. The series is reproduced here with the kind permission of Charles Kightly and Anthony Barton. Typographical errors have been corrected and comments on the original articles are shown in bold within square brackets.] Important colour notes for modellers, this month considering Parliamentary infantry, by Charles Kightly and Anthony Barton. During the Civil Wars there were no regimental colours as such, each company of an infantry regiment having its own. A full strength regiment, therefore, might have as many as ten, one each for the colonel's company, lieutenant-colonel's company, major's company, first, second, third captain's company etc. All the standards of the regiment were of the same basic colour, with a system of differencing which followed one of three patterns, as follows. In most cases the colonel's colour was a plain standard in the regimental colour (B1), sometimes with 2 a motto (A1). All the rest, however, had in their top left hand corner a canton with a cross of St. George in red on white; lieutenant-colonels' colours bore this canton and no other device. In the system most commonly followed by both sides (pattern 1) the major's colour had a 'flame' or 'stream blazant' emerging from the bottom right hand corner of the St. George (A3), while the first captain's company bore one device, the second captain's two devices, and so on for as many colours as there were companies.
    [Show full text]
  • Year 4 (1645) (1645) 4 4 Year Year
    Year 4 (1645) The Roundheads win! 1645 was a year of incredible victories for Parliament. But before that could happen certain Roundheads and one Royalist needed to go. Exit Bishop Laud. In January, the King’s favourite Bishop William Laud had his head cut off by Parliament. Exit Robert Devereux (3rd Earl of Essex) After the incredible victory at Marston Moor, things should have been a lot easier for the Roundheads. But the Earl of Essex had failed to beat the Royalists at the Second Battle of Newbury (back in October 1644). Essex didn’t lose the battle. It was a draw. But after the amazing victory at Marston Moor, it should have been an easy win. In April, Parliament sacked Essex and a lot of the commanding Roundhead officers. The law they passed to do this was called The Self-Denying Ordinance. Fairfax and Cromwell get new jobs Sir Thomas Fairfax had been put in charge of creating a different type of Roundhead army. Oliver Cromwell was his second- in-command. A New Kind of Army Fairfax and Cromwell’s army was called The New Model Army. It was a tougher, stricter more religious army than before, full of tough Puritans with new rules. The main difference between the New Model Army and the old Roundhead one was that anybody could become an officer if they were good at what they did. In the old Roundhead army, you tended to do well if you were rich and posh. The Battle of Naseby The New Model Army fought the King’s army at the Battle of Naseby in Northamptonshire on June 14th.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Southampton Research Repository Eprints Soton
    University of Southampton Research Repository ePrints Soton Copyright © and Moral Rights for this thesis are retained by the author and/or other copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder/s. The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given e.g. AUTHOR (year of submission) "Full thesis title", University of Southampton, name of the University School or Department, PhD Thesis, pagination http://eprints.soton.ac.uk i ii UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON ABSTRACT FACULTY OF LAW, ARTS & SOCIAL SCIENCES SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Doctor of Philosophy MILITARY INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS IN THE FIRST ENGLISH CIVIL WAR 1642 – 1646 By John Edward Kirkham Ellis This thesis sets out to correct the current widely held perception that military intelligence operations played a minor part in determining the outcome of the English Civil War. In spite of the warnings of Sir Charles Firth and, more recently, Ronald Hutton, many historical assessments of the role played by intelligence-gathering continue to rely upon the pronouncements made by the great Royalist historian Sir Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon, in his History of the Rebellion. Yet the overwhelming evidence of the contemporary sources shows clearly that intelligence information did, in fact, play a major part in deciding the outcome of the key battles that determined the outcome of the Civil War itself.
    [Show full text]
  • Monday History Battles PDF File
    Battles of the English Civil War – our lesson today Today’s BIG question… Can one battle seal a King’s fate? There were many major battles during the English Civil War – some were so important that they changed the course of the war and the course of history. The Battle of Edgehill (1642) The Battle of Newbury (1643) The Battle of Marston Moor (1644) The Battle of Naseby (1645) Edgehill The numbers: The main players: • October 23rd 1642. King Charles, • The Roundhead army had around 12,000 Prince Rupert, infantry men (musketeers and pikemen), 2,000 Lord Essex, men on horses (cavalry) and about 30 cannons Sir Faithful Fortesque, (artillery). Sir James Ramsey, • The Cavalier army had around 10,000 men in total (infantry and cavalry) and 20 cannons. The winner? The battle ended with no obvious winner or loser – but both sides said they had won! As it was October, it got dark and cold very quickly. Both sides lost about 1,500 men – mostly infantrymen. Newbury The numbers: The main players: •The first battle of Newbury took place King Charles, September 20th 1643. Prince Rupert, •In total Essex could count on 15,000 men. Lord Essex, •Fighting went on possibly until 10.00 at night The winner? Early in the morning of September 21st, Lord Essex found that the King and his Cavalier army had retreated to Oxford. The Roundheads had won the battle. Marston Moor The numbers: The main players: •The Battle of Marston Moor - July Prince Rupert, 2nd 1644, Lord John Byron, •28,000 Roundhead men, Oliver Cromwell, •18,000 Cavalier men, Duke of Newcastle, The winner? The Roundheads had won the battle, which meant that the King and the Cavaliers had lost their power in the North of England.
    [Show full text]
  • The Battle of Naseby Battle Positions
    The Battle of Naseby Naseby in Northamptonshire, England Nearest settlements: the villages of Naseby, Clipston and Sibbertoft Location Grid Reference: SP684799 (468490,279990) Weather conditions - Good, dry. Visibility - Poor at first due to light fog, but then good. Battlefield Ground conditions - Firm, good for cavalry. Character Natural obstacles - The field of view was restricted by Naseby ridge, 'Durst Hill' and 'Sulby Hedges'. Parliament Royalist Leaders Thomas Fairfax King Charles I Oliver Cromwell Prince Rupert of the Rhine Parliament Royalist Estimates3 range from 13,500 to 15,000 Estimates range from 9,000 to Horse - 6,000 Regular Cavalry 12,000 4 Deployment Foot - 7,000 Pike and Musket . Horse - 4,500 Regular Cavalry Ordinance5 - 7 Foot - 4,000 Pike and Musket Other forces - 550 Okey's Company of Ordinance - 6 Dragoons6 Other forces - None recorded Parliament Royalist Casualties 460 1,000 The Battle of Naseby began around 9am on 14 June, 1645 and was to last until just after noon. The tactical advantage was on the Parliament side. They had a numerical advantage in troops and these troops were all men of Cromwell's New Model Army of professional officers and soldiers who were well paid and trained. The daily rate of pay was 8 pence for infantry and 2 shillings for cavalry. The Royalist troops were smaller in number, and this was partly because King Charles had been forced to send over 3,000 troops, under the command of Lord Goring, to relieve the siege of Taunton. In spite of a summons from the King to join the battle, Lord Goring refused to return.
    [Show full text]
  • The Blachford and Waterton Families of Dorset and Hampshire in the English Civil War
    The Blachford and Waterton Families of Dorset and Hampshire in the English Civil War By Mark Wareham, August 2012 1 Introduction The English Civil war divided families as it divided the country and it set brother against brother and father against son. There are many examples of families at this time taking up arms against one another, like the Verneys and even the Cromwells. I too have discovered a divided family in my own ancestry and whilst many things have been written by other descendents and historians about the Blachfords and the Watertons during the civil war, I wanted to uncover the full story of their wartime experience and to discover what they actually did during this important conflict. Richard, son of Richard Blachford of Dorchester, married Eleanor Waterton in 1623 in Fordingbridge in Hampshire. Richard and Eleanor’s son was Robert Blachford who was born in 1624. These essays deal with three men; a grandson and two grandfathers who were divided by the civil war of 1642 to 1649. Two were royalists - Robert Waterton, born in 1565 and aged 77 at the outbreak of the war and his grandson Robert Blachford aged 18, and one was a roundhead – Richard Blachford, aged about 65-70. My family line from Richard and Robert Blachford and Eleanor, daughter of Robert Waterton, is shown in appendix two. Numbers in brackets and italics – see sources for reference. 2 Richard Blachford Richard Blachford was born in about 1570/5, probably at Exeter in Devon. He was a gentleman merchant, a clothier, who lived most of his life in Dorchester in Dorset.
    [Show full text]
  • Year 7 Online 3 Who Won the Civil War and Why?
    Year 7 History Online w/c 15th June Who won the Civil War and why? A war between two sides in the same Any questions, please contact Miss Gunn via [email protected]. Where work has to be submitted, please email it to your class teacher: • Ms Gunn – [email protected] • Mrs Reeve-McKew [email protected] • Mrs Tunstall – [email protected] Remember, there were two men fighting against each other in the Civil War…… King Charles 1 Oliver Cromwell Royalist/Cavalier Parliament/Roundhead Versus https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zky82hv/video First of all, let’s see what you remember from last time. If you’re working online, please write in your exercise book. If you’re working in the work book, write you answer by the question. 1. Which very important city did the Parliamentarians control? 2. Why was control of this city so important? 3. Did the Royalists or the Parliamentarians control important ports like Dover and Portsmouth? 4. Why was control of the poets important? 5. What is propaganda? 6. Which side did King Charles lead? 7. Which side wore the pot helmet? • There were very few major battles in the Civil which lasted from 1642 to 1649. At first, it looked like the Royalists might win. • However, Oliver Cromwell made some changes to the Parliamentarian army and created the New Model Army. • This army won several major battles against the King eg the Battle of Marston Moor in 1644 and that Battle of Naseby in June 1645. After this battle, Parliament was able to take control of more areas of England giving them a larger and better resourced army.
    [Show full text]