The Earl of Manchester's Regiment of Foote blog
The official blog of the English Civil War re-enactment group! Visit our website at www.earlofmanchesters.co.uk
On 14th June 1645, the fields between the Northamptonshire
villages of Naseby and Sibbertoft saw one of the most significant
battles in British history.
Royalist troops loyal to King Charles I and the Parliamentarian ‘New Model Army’ led by Sir Thomas Fairfax met in the culmination of a three-year bloody civil war that had pitted families and friends against each other and the fates of England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland rested in the balance.
So why is The Battle of Naseby so important in British history…?
There are acres and acres of writing about the most “pivotal” moments in history, those occasions when the future seems to turn on a single act and everything after it owes its existence that that moment.
Royalist troops loyal to King Charles I and the Parliamentarian ‘New Model Army’ led by Sir Thomas Fairfax met in the culmination of a three-year bloody civil war that had pitted families and friends against each other and the fates of England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland rested in the balance.
So why is The Battle of Naseby so important in British history…?
There are acres and acres of writing about the most “pivotal” moments in history, those occasions when the future seems to turn on a single act and everything after it owes its existence that that moment.
In lists of British history, the Battle of Naseby is one such moment.
Fought on gently sloping fields next to a quiet
Northamptonshire village on 14th June 1645 by the Royalist forces of
King Charles I and the English Parliament’s New Model Army, Naseby is
exactly one of those moments that changed British (and to a certain
extent world) history forever.
So what are the top reasons why this battle, in this place, at this time, had such a profound effect?
1. It decided the first English Civil War.
In 1645, the English Civil War could have
gone either way – there was no obvious indication that either
Parliament nor the Royalists had a clear military advantage over the
other. Both sides had large armies filled with a mix of battle-hardened
veterans and fresh newbies, plus solid supply bases and well-provisioned
garrisons. Although King Charles had lost the North at Marston Moor in
1644, his forces in Scotland were doing well and he still controlled the
West and Wales.
Yet his decision to fight the New Model
Army at Naseby was arguably one of the single biggest military blunders
in British history.
Not
only was he heavily outnumbered by Thomas “Black Tom” Fairfax’s New
Model Army – 10,000 versus 15,000 – but his men still fought the way
they had fought back in 1642 when the war started.
However, Parliament had raised a new army
imbued with fresh ideas (see below) and created for one purpose – to
strike the decisive blow against the king. At Naseby it did just that.
By concentrating his best forces into one
army, leaving his fortified capital of Oxford, and then dithering
around in the Midlands, Charles gave Parliament the best chance it had
to catch and destroy his forces.
Ironically the battle started well for
Charles – Prince Rupert smashed the Parliamentarian left wing with a
dashing charge and the King’s pikemen and musketeers pushed Parliament’s
infantry back almost to breaking point. However, Rupert’s charge left
his men scattered and on the other flank Marmaduke Langdale was routed
by Parliament’s golden boy Oliver Cromwell, whose cavalry then turned on
the Royalist infantry. A running retreat/rout over 12 miles took place,
with thousands of the king’s men captured or killed.
Naseby destroyed the veteran infantry
Charles relied on, condemned him to spend the rest of the summer being
chased around the Midlands and West Country, and gave the New Model Army
the impetus to sweep up the remainder of his forces. Although the King
himself believed he could still win the war and fighting dragged on into
1646, his military machine was irrevocably broken and the overwhelming
success of the New Model Army at Naseby was the moment King Charles lost
the English Civil War.
2. It helped assert the right of Parliament over the monarch.
Ignore
what you may have been taught at school – the English Civil War did not
start because some people wanted a king and others wanted a republic.
That happened, almost by accident, later.
But though they may not have known it the
men who fought at Naseby were setting their country on the path to both
a constitutional monarchy and a modern Parliamentary democracy.
The war had begun as the culmination of a
long, drawn-out argument over who controlled the levers of power with
few, if any, people arguing for a kingless state. Even before Charles
had ruled without Parliament during his ’The Personal Rule’ (also known
as the ‘Eleven Years’ Tyranny’ depending on who you asked), MPs had been
clamouring for more control over the country, especially with foreign
policy, religion, and taxes. That argument eventually boiled over into
all out war, which the King would go on to lose.
The victory at Naseby established Parliament’s right to a permanent role in the government of the kingdom.
3. It gave us the Armed Forces.
Before the English Civil War, the British
were naturally suspicious of soldiers. To have lots of them hanging
around was a recipe for disaster, either because they’d get bored and go
on a rampage or it meant the king wanted to use them against his own
people. And the people didn’t like either of those options. So armies
were only raised when they were needed – either to defend the country or
invade somewhere else – and would then be disbanded.
The New Model Army was different.
Before 1645, winning battles mostly came
down to good fortune, surprise, soldiers who wouldn’t immediately turn
and run (who were common), and commanders who knew what they were doing
(who were not). Also, many of the troops Parliament relied upon from
London and what we now call the Home Counties had been raised as
defensive troops, so as soon as the threat to their counties was over
they’d either refuse to move or simply pack up and head home.
The Second Battle of Newbury in October
1644 was a wake up call for Parliament. They had won but only on paper;
arguments between the commanders let the King’s defeated forces escape
virtually intact. So MPs became convinced that to win the war, rather
than several armies led by individual commanders, it needed a single
national army committed to the cause. This lead to the New Model Army
or, as it was called at the time, “The Army, Newly Modelled”.
To remove political interference in
tactical decision making, MPs and Lords(with a few notable exceptions)
were forbidden from being officers by the Self-Denying Ordnance while
rank was awarded on merit, meaning the brave and militarily gifted rose
quickly. Rather than ranks of fresh or conscripted men without adequate
arms and provisions, the New Model was to be made up of properly
trained, well supplied, and regularly paid professional troops (side
note: the latter of these wasn’t exactly followed through).
The New Model Army was Britain’s first
professional army and was the beginning of the modern British Army that
we know today (in fact, two existing regiments – The Coldstream Guards
and The Blues and Royals – can trace their history all the way back to
the New Model).
It was a truly revolutionary idea and, at Naseby, it worked.
4. It turned Oliver Cromwell into the historical leviathan we know today.
He’s been dubbed “God’s Englishman” and was voted amongst the top ten Britons of all time
but, despite what many think, Oliver Cromwell neither started nor ended
the first English Civil War, nor was the conflict “Cromwell vs Charles
I”. In fact, he didn’t come to totally dominate English politics until
after the King was dead and the second Civil War in 1651 tipped off
his beloved and (arguably) more capable superior, Lord Fairfax, as
to which way the wind was blowing so that he stood down as leader of
the New Model Army.
Cromwell was, however, very good at being a cavalry commander.
At the start of the war in 1642, he was
just a lowly Huntingdonshire squire with little in the way of prospects,
who only really got elected as an MP because of his family connections.
At the outbreak of the war, he organised a local troop of cavalrymen
but turned up late to the Battle of Edgehill just in time to witness
Parliament’s cavalry get their backsides handed to them by the dashing
Prince Rupert’s men.
Cavalry tactics at the time involved two
wings of cavalry charging at each other and trying to drive the other
side off, the winners then chasing their defeated foes across the
countryside in a disordered gallop and maybe stoping off for a pint or
two afterwards. Once that initial job was done, the cavalry usually took
no more part in a battle. Cromwell realised that if you trained
your cavalry properly you could drive off the enemy, get back into
order, and then wheel round and attack the enemy’s infantry – and if
there’s one thing infantry don’t like, it’s enemy cavalry. Thus were
born Cromwell’s elite cavalry, The Ironsides, who turned the tide in
pretty much every battle they fought in.
This was certainly the case at Naseby,
where he commanded Parliament’s right wing. While Prince Rupert smashed
Parliament’s left wing, he couldn’t control his men and by the time they
got back to the fighting it was all over – thanks to the Ironsides. Cromwell’s
reputation was well on the rise by this point anyway, but Naseby made
him a Parliamentarian hero. And the rest, as they say, is history.
(Oh, and for the record he didn’t ban Christmas. Or mince pies. Or dancing. Or the theatre. Or much of anything.)
5. It showed what King Charles was really up to.
After
the battle, the victorious Parliamentarians rampaged through the
Royalists ‘baggage train’ – which is where an army keeps its supplies.
While capturing great amounts of powder, arms, and food, they also
seized the carriage carrying the king’s private papers, which had been
left behind in the rout.
What it contained was sheer dynamite.
Confirming all Parliament’s worst fears and suspicions about Charles,
the papers showed that he had been trying to raise an army of Roman
Catholic soldiers from Ireland to invade England, as well as negotiating
help from French and Spanish mercenaries – all of them also Catholic.
What was wrong with them being Catholic?
Bear in mind that Protestant England had been at war with Roman Catholic
powers such as Spain and France pretty much ever since Henry VIII had
broken from Rome and established the Church of England. Henry and his
daughter Elizabeth had mixed Protestantism up with a bombshell cocktail
of religious zealotry, national pride, and plain old xenophobia; the
despotic reign of Bloody Queen Mary, the Spanish Armada, and the plots
against Elizabeth were all still strong in the collective memory and
Charles’ dad and King of Scotland, James VI, had only become King James I
of England because he was Elizabeth’s closest Protestant relative. So
hated were the Catholics that Irish-sounding Royalist soldiers were
routinely hanged, Irish-Scottish regiments were given no mercy, and when
Parliament’s soldiers overran the Royalist baggage train at Naseby,
they infamously raped, mutilated, and killed many of the female camp
followers – later justifying it by saying they thought they were Irish
Catholics (they undoubtedly weren’t).
Parliament wasted no time in publishing
copies of this damning correspondence for the whole nation to see.
Charles was shown to not only to be duplicitous but also that he
seemingly only cared about being in power and he didn’t care a jot
about how he got it.
This moment, combined with his sparking
of the second English Civil War by getting the Scottish to invade in
1648, was what sealed his fate and led him to the executioner’s block in
1649.
6. It destroyed the idea of the divine right of kings.
Charles
believed, as his father and many others before him, that he was
divinely appointed to be king by God himself. Therefore, whatever he
wanted to do was – naturally – what God wanted and those who were
against him were against the deity himself. Unfortunately, Parliament
was becoming increasingly dominated by ultra-devout Puritans who
believed THEY were the ones divinely appointed by God and their mission
was to overcome the tyranny of fallible Earth-bound kings.
While the war was sparked by issues
over forms of worship, money, and power, it soon took on a dangerously
dogmatic religious tone. With the removal of their critics in a purged
Parliament and the decisive defeat of the King’s army at Naseby, it
seemed to the Puritans that God now agreed with them.
After Naseby, the Puritan ‘Independent’
faction would become a political force to be reckoned with. And with one
stroke of the executioner’s axe, they irrevocably changed the
relationship between England’s monarch and England’s people forever.
7. It was a stepping stone to a political revolution.
In the New Model Army, Parliament had unwittingly created a pet bulldog that it could not control.
Once it had won the war and disposed of
the king, and with no military force that could match it, the army
quickly came to realise that IT carried the balance of political power
and it became a hotbed of radical politics and discontent. Many,
including political agitators within the army dubbed Levellers (because,
their critics claimed, they wanted to bring rich and poor to the same
level), demanded a greater say in government and a famous meeting called
The Putney Debates in 1647 was the first time common people and their
social superiors had sat down to discuss the very question of the
nation’s governance.
It
hinged on the question of why had they fought in the first place.
Surely, said leading Leveller sympathiser and friend of Cromwell Colonel
Thomas Rainsborough, even the lowliest Englishman has the same right to
a say in England’s affairs as the highest?
This, and The Leveller’s idealism, has
echoed down the centuries ever since. Some claim them as
proto-socialists, others as anarchistic radicals, but either way Putney
set the terms of the argument for almost 370 years – an argument that is
still going on today.
After Charles was executed in 1649,
England (soon to be joined, whether they liked it or not, by Scotland
and Ireland) became a republic called ‘The Commonwealth of England’. A
limited form of Parliamentary democracy was now in practise and it
finally seemed like the tyranny of absolute monarchs that had begun with
the Norman invasion in 1066 was over.
However, grand words are just that –
words. After the army smashed the Scots and invaded Ireland, they were
in no mood to compromise with anyone about anything and the purging of
anti-army MPs from Parliament, Cromwell’s elevation to ‘Lord Protector’,
and the military dictatorship that followed turned hopes of a peaceful,
tolerant, and free English republic to dust.
After the death of Cromwell in 1658 it
was ironically part of the army itself, led by General George Monck (who
had been cunningly keeping out of things up in Scotland), that helped
usher in the return of the monarchy in 1660.
But absolute monarchy had had its day in
England and, following the invasion of the William of Orange’s Dutch
forces in the ‘Glorious Revolution’ in 1688, England’s one and only true
“revolution” came to a close with the constitutional monarchy that
still stands, more or less in the same shape, today.
A panoramic view of the battlefield from the Naseby Memorial, Northamptonshire
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου