New Model Army, European_History, College Term Papers.com


		Data Bases
		• Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism?

		Links
		• Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com

		Free Essays
		• Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers

Search Lots of Essays

Back to Subjects - European History

New Model Army

New Model Army ASSESS THE IMPORTANCE OF THE NEW MODEL ARMY IN DECIDING THE OUTCOME OF THE FIRST CIVIL WAR In the early years of the civil war, little difference existed between parliament and the king in respects of power and territorial advantage. It could be said that the war was being fought to a desultory standstill. From the commencement of the conflict, the primary objective of Parliament had been simply to avoid defeat by the king. As soon as the problems of the government had resorted to violence, the leaders of Parliament knew that they could not tolerate any less than complete victory over the royalist forces. This is symbolised by a quote from the Earl of Manchester, “we may beat the king ninety-nine times out of hundred, but if he beats us just once, then he is still the king”. Parliament could not afford to lose. If the king was to gain the upper hand then parliamentary supporters knew that they would likely pay for their loyalty with their lives. The introduction of the New Model Army was designed to change this philosophy for the better. As a group of well-organised, highly trained soldiers, their purpose was no longer to avoid defeat, but to win the war – as parliamentary leaders, most notably Cromwell, realised would be necessary if they were to succeed. This essay is aimed at examining just how important a factor the New Model Army was in deciding that the fate of the first civil war would reside with Parliament and not the king. There were indeed other reasons for this victory, some of which will be explained below, but it needs to be evaluated just how big an advantage the New Model Army was to Parliament, and whether parliamentary success was only made possible after its creation. When the war first broke out Parliament had at its command the local militia, or trainbands, of those districts supporting its cause, most notably London (which is explained in further detail below), the eastern counties, and south-east England. Problems soon came into fruition however as militia were always unwilling to fight far from their homes, understandably caring little for the political quarrels stemming from a city they had never set eyes upon. Also, local militiamen were often poorly trained and held little resources to support themselves during a military campaign. Parliament responded by authorising its prominent supporters – as had the king – to raise troops of both cavalry and infantry from their own tenants and associates. It could be argued that these troops were in a better condition than those of the king, mainly due to the fact that Parliament provided their pay, but strategically they proved ineffective because of their lack of any kind of unified command. It was not until the end of 1644 that disputes surrounding the conduct of war escalated within Parliament. The main characters of the argument were the Earl of Manchester and Oliver Cromwell, the latter of which believed in a severe military shake-up, arguing that the war would never reach a conclusion unless the military resources of Parliament were improved. Whilst the parliamentary commanders were bickering, they suffered defeats at Lostwithiel and Newbury in 1644. It was soon after these unaccaptable losses that Parliament recast its military establishment and formed the New Model Army. It was planned to comprise of eleven regiments of cavalry, 600 men to each, twelve regiments of infantry, each with 1,200 soldiers, and 1,000 dragoons (mounted infantrymen). In general there was little new about the New Model Army except for centralisation. The remnants of the three existing armies of Manchester, the Earl of Essex and Sir William Waller were combined to be directed by a parliamentary committee, which would include parliamentary generals who were displaced by the Self-Denying Ordinance of 1645 which had excluded members of Parliament from civil and military office. The major difference with the New Model Army was that of motivation. They were trained between October 1643 and March 1644 with one specific purpose in mind, they were to break the previous tradition of parliamentary forces being content with merely avoiding defeat, this time they were fighting to win. They could not settle for any less than the complete distruction of the king and all he represented. The new troops also had a higher level of religious zeal, being intent on killing off the marauding catholics, represented by the king – particularly after his allegiances with the rebellious Irish. Sir Thomas Fairfax became the leader of the New Model Army infantry, and Cromwell the cavalry. Their first major success came at the Battle of Naseby in 1645 which delivered the decisive blow to the royalists. The King’s main armies were destroyed and this created an open path to the West where his other substantial forces would to be defeated at Langport. Charles had greatly underestimated the strength of the new army and had paid for it dearly. Whereas previously the parliamentary forces were happy just to fend off the king and his armies for another day, they had now succeeded in eliminating his defences through the use of the New Model Army, leaving the oppurtunity wide open for the King to be reached himself. To be able to truly evaluate just how important the New Model Army was, it is necessary to investigate other major reasons for parliamentary victory. Parliament’s control of London was crucial to their war effort. As was previously mentioned, a great deal of Parliament’s manpower came from local militias and trainbands. London provided a great deal of these, mainly due to its population doubling to 200,000 in the seventeenth century. London is also the capital of the country, containing the central government – as well as the primary source of banking and business in the country - which would have given obvious benefits to whoever held it in possession. It was also one of the major ports of Britain, granting Parliament access to a large portion of international trade as well as naval control. The king did have control of Bristol and Newcastle for a time, however, he was to lose control of both by the end of 1645 meaning Parliament would now control all the major ports, eliminating the possibility of the king gaining arms from abroad. The level of communications was at a high standard compared to other regions of Britain, with London being the centre of the road network, which would have enable quicker mobilisation of troops. But perhaps the most beneficiary factor to Parliament of the occupation of the capital, was the Tower of London. The Tower provided Parliament with a huge arsenal and would have been a huge advantage. Wars are simply battles of resources. Whichever side has access to the most money, the most men, and the most weapons will ultimately win. B. Williams wrote that “only one factor emerges as fundamental and undisputed in an evaluation of Parliament’s victory: financial organisation”. The possession of London tipped the scales decisively in Parliament’s favour. The other critical reason for parliamentary victory was due to their military allegiance with the Scots. They had been involved long before the conflict erupted and their disputes with the king were in existence as far back as Charles’ personal rule. His policies in Scotland greatly imitated those in England. He made taxation no longer a crisis measure and made it an annual occurrence. Charles also ordered the Scots to pay for the building of a new Parliament house and new law courts. When Charles attempted to impose the new English Prayer Book on to Scotland which met with unrest. Archbishop Laud imposed the new liturgy on Scotland in 1637. It was very offensive to the Scots and riots broke out. In 1638 people began to sign the covenant in their thousands in support of their own prayer book. Charles had lost the support of the Scottish forever. Up until 1643 Parliament had been merely fending off the king but now decided to up the offensive. Along with the creation of the New Model Army, Parliament also dealt with Scotland. In promising that they would convert England into a Presbyterian church, they secured Scottish military help which would prove crucial at the battle of Marston Moor. The king’s loss of this battle would effectively lose him the north of England. Parliament had indeed found itself a useful ally. The Scottish army had previously resided in the north of England that had placed a heavy burden on Charles that he could not overcome through military means. And with this alliance the royalist forces were fighting not just Parliament and the New Model Army, but also the Scots as well. It was to prove an uphill struggle, soon to be in vain. It is taken for granted that Parliament won the civil war. It could also be said however, that the King lost the war for a number of reasons. The territorial possessions of both Parliament and the king were vastly different. Parliament had its disposal a great deal of the major ports and London. It was because of this that they always had a larger base of manpower to draw upon for soldiers than the king. They also had far stronger finance than the King. Arguably the biggest reason for the consequence of the war was that of each sides objectives. Parliament was fighting to defend its gains whereas the king was mostly trying to regain his losses which proves far less fruitful. The king could also be questioned as a leader, often believed to have poorer strategies than that of Parliament. For example, at the Battle of Naseby he ordered his troops to march uphill against superior forces, ultimately resulting in defeat. He made the mistake to underestimate the New Model Army, with royalist forces labelling them the ‘New Noddle Army’, and this was a vital error of judgement. Perhaps his most crucial mistake was his involvement with the Irish. As Parliament looked north to the Scots for help, Charles looked to Ireland for military support. They were still in rebellion and were devout Catholics. By using Irish Catholics to fight for him, he was seen as encouraging ‘Catholics to kill Protestants’, and act which would only have adverse effects. It stirred up the motivation of the New Model Army who were religiously very opinionated. It can so be argued that Parliament’s victory was not entirely due to their own doing, but also to the king’s inability. In conclusion, the New Model Army was extremely important in respects to the ultimate victory of Parliament. Of course there were other reasons for this eventuality, but the existence of the New Model Army is the strongest reason why Parliament won. They were to prove so powerful that Parliament would be unable to stop them in following years. Even though Parliament held London, the navy, and had countless other points to their advantage, it was the New Model Army which enabled them to follow it up with military strength. Before its creation Parliament’s armies had proved weak and indecisive. It was the New Model Army which highlighted the difference between the king and Parliament. They provided the platform for the end of the first civil war. Bibliography:

Word Count: 1871

DMCA Notifications and Requests