What if Charles I won the English Civil War?

[Circle of Willis]

It seems that the longer the English Civil War went on, the lower the Royalists' chances of winning dropped: so let's say Charles' nephew Prince Rupert of the Rhine maintains discipline and as a result they decisively crush the Parliamentarian field army at the Battle of Edgehill, after which he and the King march on London with the defeated Earl of Essex as their captive and compel the disheartened garrison of the capital to surrender without a fight. Since 1642 isn't even over yet when the above happens, Scotland and Ireland remain in turmoil as of the Royalist victory. What follows?

 

[stevep]

Still a lot more fighting. Charles will seek to suppress both Scotland and Ireland and also need to control England while he's taxing it [probably very heavily to raise the military and possibly other things he needs/wants] without any Parliament or other restrain on his power.

Hopefully he will be defeated at some point, as he's a utterly repulsive character, a total egomaniac who seems to have pretty much lack morals. Also England, let alone Britain as a whole back under an autocratic absolute monarchy isn't going to be a good place to be. Not to mention if he succeeds for a while there is the danger that the next revolt would be markedly more violent, say like the French revolution.

The Scots had a pretty good army and it took the NMA [New Model Army] under Cromwell to defeat them the two times they attacked England so I suspect defeating them won't be easy for the Royalists. Ireland has less well organised forces but a lot of fairly undeveloped lands and given the religious divide - as Charles I didn't start dabbling with Catholicism as his sons did - probably a hell of a lot of determination.

If he did gain control of the three kingdoms I wonder what happens with the American colonies? I think there was support for the monarchy in most of them - they seemed to have some opposition to the Republic until faced with force. However if Charles is replacing Parliamentary restraint in Britain how long would he be willing to have the colonies paying no taxes and pretty much self-governing, especially since they would be markedly more vulnerable - both to local natives and other powers at this stage. Could see a clash coming there if the worst happened and Charles won a clear victory in Britain.

 

[Circle of Willis]

Charles' prideful and insanely stubborn character does not seem to lend itself well to good governance or long-term internal peace, I agree. Since with him it was always his way or the highway and he seemed to think himself justified in breaking any deal when it would benefit him, I don't think the Wars of the Three Kingdoms would burn out until either he was dead, or the growing list of people who didn't like him were crushed one way or another.

That said, he seemed to be willing to cut deals with the Irish Catholics over the Scottish Covenanters (who he also historically cut a deal with against Parliament, to disastrous results, but only after first being defeated by the combined forces of Parliament and the Scots). If he entered a full alliance with the Irish, would it be enough to let him defeat the Scots or would it just cripple any remaining domestic support he had? The idea of a 'persecution flip' defining Ireland, with Charles tolerating the Catholic Irish and allowing them to run roughshod over the Presbyterian Ulster planters, does seem to me an interesting irony.

I'd imagine an utterly triumphant Charles would push a lot more Puritans and other dissident Protestants (as well as political opponents of Charles in general) to emigrate to the colonies, and they wouldn't want to put up with his rule there any more than they would have back in Britain. Is it realistic for the American colonies to fight for their independence a century early, even if it's not necessarily as a united country? A Puritan theocracy in Massachusetts, Leveller Rhode Island and a Virginia taken over by the aristocratic Parliamentarian types who just dislike the absolutist Charles trampling on their privileges all fighting against the English government, for example.

 

[stevep]

Charles' prideful and insanely stubborn character does not seem to lend itself well to good governance or long-term internal peace, I agree. Since with him it was always his way or the highway and he seemed to think himself justified in breaking any deal when it would benefit him, I don't think the Wars of the Three Kingdoms would burn out until either he was dead, or the growing list of people who didn't like him were crushed one way or another.

Would agree fully.

That said, he seemed to be willing to cut deals with the Irish Catholics over the Scottish Covenanters (who he also historically cut a deal with against Parliament, to disastrous results, but only after first being defeated by the combined forces of Parliament and the Scots). If he entered a full alliance with the Irish, would it be enough to let him defeat the Scots or would it just cripple any remaining domestic support he had? The idea of a 'persecution flip' defining Ireland, with Charles tolerating the Catholic Irish and allowing them to run roughshod over the Presbyterian Ulster planters, does seem to me an interesting irony.

I think, given this was pretty much the height of the counter-reformation and the 30 years war was just ending on the continent I doubt that allying with the Catholics would have done him much good at all. There was a huge level of paranoia about Catholicism, which was still strong half a century later with the overthrown of James II. If Charles I went any great distance in this way he's going to alienate too many people. Which is likely to be bad for him and could also be very bad for the Catholic Irish.

I think the main Protestant settlement in Ulster was to occur later. Again when James II fled to Ireland and raised an army there, leading to the Battle of the Boyne the northern Protestants were few enough in number they basically managed to hole up in Londonderry.

I'd imagine an utterly triumphant Charles would push a lot more Puritans and other dissident Protestants (as well as political opponents of Charles in general) to emigrate to the colonies, and they wouldn't want to put up with his rule there any more than they would have back in Britain. Is it realistic for the American colonies to fight for their independence a century early, even if it's not necessarily as a united country? A Puritan theocracy in Massachusetts, Leveller Rhode Island and a Virginia taken over by the aristocratic Parliamentarian types who just dislike the absolutist Charles trampling on their privileges all fighting against the English government, for example.

If they got the chance to escape yes many would flee. Although it might be to the mainland, as the Puritans who founded Massachusetts went to the Netherlands 1st. Its a long way to N America, especially at this time and would he want yet more unreliable elements in the colonies? Might he try something like the French, who sought to prevent anything but loyal Catholics to emigrate to Canada. You could see a build up of more discontented people in the colonies but if Charles could get a firm grip of Britain he would be likely to want to confirm his control over the colonies. True its even harder for a state in Europe to project power over the Atlantic now than a century later but the colonies are markedly less populated and secure and society was more conservative then. Without a successful overthrow of the monarchy of OTL ECW the question of actually overthrowing a divinely supported monarch would have been a bigger issue. You might see a successful revolution but I think it would be unlikely to succeed unless Charles monarchy is too weak, which it might be. The rebels in the colonies would be so much weaker and would lack the boost of the pre-existing success against Charles of OTL.

Steve

 

[ATP]

Still a lot more fighting. Charles will seek to suppress both Scotland and Ireland and also need to control England while he's taxing it [probably very heavily to raise the military and possibly other things he needs/wants] without any Parliament or other restrain on his power.

Hopefully he will be defeated at some point, as he's a utterly repulsive character, a total egomaniac who seems to have pretty much lack morals. Also England, let alone Britain as a whole back under an autocratic absolute monarchy isn't going to be a good place to be. Not to mention if he succeeds for a while there is the danger that the next revolt would be markedly more violent, say like the French revolution.

The Scots had a pretty good army and it took the NMA [New Model Army] under Cromwell to defeat them the two times they attacked England so I suspect defeating them won't be easy for the Royalists. Ireland has less well organised forces but a lot of fairly undeveloped lands and given the religious divide - as Charles I didn't start dabbling with Catholicism as his sons did - probably a hell of a lot of determination.

If he did gain control of the three kingdoms I wonder what happens with the American colonies? I think there was support for the monarchy in most of them - they seemed to have some opposition to the Republic until faced with force. However if Charles is replacing Parliamentary restraint in Britain how long would he be willing to have the colonies paying no taxes and pretty much self-governing, especially since they would be markedly more vulnerable - both to local natives and other powers at this stage. Could see a clash coming there if the worst happened and Charles won a clear victory in Britain.

Better Charles then Cromwell - who not only was egomaniac,but also genocider.Nobody could accuse Charles of that.
Not mention trying to turn England into old testament kingdom.
And except genocide,he also destroyed Parliament - so if Charles do that,nothing would change.

And would be it really that bad if Scotland become independent again? better for Scotland as country,not catholics there,but still better.
The same goes for Ireland.Would world really stop existing id protestants could not enslave catholics there ?

About colonies - in 1642 they were non-issue,so ,unless France or Spain take over,nothing what happen there matter.

P.S Charles father as only ruler send 12.000 soldiers to help Poland in 1620 when Turks attacked with 300.000 army.
They come when Turks arleady widraw,but if war lasted few months more,Polish king would probably feel obligated to send
some troops to England in 1642.
We have almost 30.000 troops then,but 4.000 calvary would be enough to wn any battle - winged hussarls could go through any calvary and most infrantry of that time.Add Stanisław Koniecpolski as commander,and victory is sure.

 

[stevep]

Better Charles then Cromwell - who not only was egomaniac,but also genocider.Nobody could accuse Charles of that.
Not mention trying to turn England into old testament kingdom.
And except genocide,he also destroyed Parliament - so if Charles do that,nothing would change.

Have to disagree here. Cromwell wasn't the most pleasant man but he was a damned sight more rational than Charles I. Much of his problem is that when Charles II returned to the throne there was a strong desire to demonise Cromwell, as the republic's leading figure and people who wanted to get in with Charles leaped on the bandwagon. It later suited Irish Catholics - or possibly they knew no better - to take up the same line late on. If you can find it read Cromwell, an honourable enemy, which is written by an Irish man who actually lives in Drogheda it counters a lot of the stories about Cromwell's behaviour in Ireland.

The other factor here is as history showed the republic would either fail and see the monarchy returned - but with clearer restaints on its power - or possibly have stablished and developed into different ways. Cromwell was in a position to rule for his life as Lord Protector after other attempts to find a working government system failed but was always going to die eventually. A clear victory by Charles would have cemented divine rule autocracy and made a restoration of any working Parliament a lot more difficult.

And would be it really that bad if Scotland become independent again? better for Scotland as country,not catholics there,but still better.
The same goes for Ireland.Would world really stop existing id protestants could not enslave catholics there ?

Never said it would, as long as they stopped attacking England, which is what ended up being the cause for the Republic ultimately conquering both. What my point was that an autocrat like Charles, if he won a quick victory in England, would have been certain to seeking to impose his rule in both other kingdoms. Most especially probably Scotland as the was where his dynasty came from. The English civil war started in part because Charles was seeking to raise yet more money to suppress unrest in Ireland - where he already had an army fighting the Irish - and launch a new attack on Scotland where one army he had organised to invade the country from England had failed. There is no way he would have given up on either kingdom if he had a secure base in control of England, at least not without a hell of a lot more fighting and bloodshed. The reasons I actually mentioned this was my hope would be that such attempts would not only fail but also cause enough unrest that his control of England would ultimately collapse.

I mentioned attacks on England because that's what caused the Commonwealth's occupation OTL. The Scottish rebels intervened militarily in England three times. Once against Charles, helping the Parliamentarians when the Royalists looked like winning, most noticeably at Marston Moor. Then they twice attacked the Commonwealth, having done deals, 1st with Charles I, then after his execution his son Charles II, to impose both the Stewart monarchy and the Scottish kirk on England. [I have no doubt that Charles I would have accepted the latter or any restraint on his power so expecting that he, and probably the Scots as well, were planning betrayal as soon as it suited them.

About colonies - in 1642 they were non-issue,so ,unless France or Spain take over,nothing what happen there matter.

It would matter to the colonists, other rebels fleeing England and to a Charles who has secured the three kingdoms.

P.S Charles father as only ruler send 12.000 soldiers to help Poland in 1620 when Turks attacked with 300.000 army.
They come when Turks arleady widraw,but if war lasted few months more,Polish king would probably feel obligated to send
some troops to England in 1642.
We have almost 30.000 troops then,but 4.000 calvary would be enough to wn any battle - winged hussarls could go through any calvary and most infrantry of that time.Add Stanisław Koniecpolski as commander,and victory is sure.

Now that would be an interesting scenario, if potentially nasty for Britain.

Steve

 

[S'task]

If he did gain control of the three kingdoms I wonder what happens with the American colonies? I think there was support for the monarchy in most of them - they seemed to have some opposition to the Republic until faced with force. However if Charles is replacing Parliamentary restraint in Britain how long would he be willing to have the colonies paying no taxes and pretty much self-governing, especially since they would be markedly more vulnerable - both to local natives and other powers at this stage. Could see a clash coming there if the worst happened and Charles won a clear victory in Britain.

The British American colonies of the time, which mainly were Virginia and Massachusettes, were actually divided by the English Civil War as well, very much based on who the originating power of their charters were. Virginia was a Crown Colony, it's charter a direct grant from the Monarch, and so it sided with the Crown (this loyalty to the crown, up to and including sending troops from Virginia to fight for the Crown in the war, is what eventually caused it to gain the nickname of "Old Dominion"). Massachusetts meanwhile, was loyal to Parliament, though didn't do as much to support it. Under Cromwell Virginia and other Crown Colonies in the Americas (AKA Bermuda and a few others) were punished for their loyalty to the Crown with economic sanctions.

It is actually more likely that Virginia would be rewarded for it's loyalty to the crown, or at least, not punished. Which means it actually would be slightly more prosperous and successful than in the OTL, though it may also not see as many upper class English flee there from England in the aftermath of the Civil War.

I'd imagine an utterly triumphant Charles would push a lot more Puritans and other dissident Protestants (as well as political opponents of Charles in general) to emigrate to the colonies, and they wouldn't want to put up with his rule there any more than they would have back in Britain. Is it realistic for the American colonies to fight for their independence a century early, even if it's not necessarily as a united country? A Puritan theocracy in Massachusetts, Leveller Rhode Island and a Virginia taken over by the aristocratic Parliamentarian types who just dislike the absolutist Charles trampling on their privileges all fighting against the English government, for example.

They wouldn't flee to Virginia. Virginia, as noted above, was a crown colony and also institutionally Anglican with already well-established colonies and power structures (bear in mind, Virginia was colonized in 1606, so an entire generation had passed since it's initial colonization). Puritans would likely have fled north to the New England colonies, much like how in the OTL we saw some crown loyalists flee to the Virginia colony. If you saw an early American Revolution, it likely would have been without the southern colonies and been much more localized to New England. Which means it would end up failing spectacularly, as not only were those colonies much less developed by that time, you also would have had a much more loyal base of operations for Crown troops to operate out of to bring them to heel (Virginia). Something most people forget about the Revolutionary War was just how much of a lynchpin Virginia was to the conflict, because it was so removed from the major fighting until right at the end and had secured itself from British rule early on (as in, they drove the British governor out of the colony around the same time as the Battles of Lexington and Concord), it exported a lot of troops and supplies to the other rebellious colonies.

 

[ATP]

Have to disagree here. Cromwell wasn't the most pleasant man but he was a damned sight more rational than Charles I. Much of his problem is that when Charles II returned to the throne there was a strong desire to demonise Cromwell, as the republic's leading figure and people who wanted to get in with Charles leaped on the bandwagon. It later suited Irish Catholics - or possibly they knew no better - to take up the same line late on. If you can find it read Cromwell, an honourable enemy, which is written by an Irish man who actually lives in Drogheda it counters a lot of the stories about Cromwell's behaviour in Ireland.

The other factor here is as history showed the republic would either fail and see the monarchy returned - but with clearer restaints on its power - or possibly have stablished and developed into different ways. Cromwell was in a position to rule for his life as Lord Protector after other attempts to find a working government system failed but was always going to die eventually. A clear victory by Charles would have cemented divine rule autocracy and made a restoration of any working Parliament a lot more difficult.



Never said it would, as long as they stopped attacking England, which is what ended up being the cause for the Republic ultimately conquering both. What my point was that an autocrat like Charles, if he won a quick victory in England, would have been certain to seeking to impose his rule in both other kingdoms. Most especially probably Scotland as the was where his dynasty came from. The English civil war started in part because Charles was seeking to raise yet more money to suppress unrest in Ireland - where he already had an army fighting the Irish - and launch a new attack on Scotland where one army he had organised to invade the country from England had failed. There is no way he would have given up on either kingdom if he had a secure base in control of England, at least not without a hell of a lot more fighting and bloodshed. The reasons I actually mentioned this was my hope would be that such attempts would not only fail but also cause enough unrest that his control of England would ultimately collapse.

I mentioned attacks on England because that's what caused the Commonwealth's occupation OTL. The Scottish rebels intervened militarily in England three times. Once against Charles, helping the Parliamentarians when the Royalists looked like winning, most noticeably at Marston Moor. Then they twice attacked the Commonwealth, having done deals, 1st with Charles I, then after his execution his son Charles II, to impose both the Stewart monarchy and the Scottish kirk on England. [I have no doubt that Charles I would have accepted the latter or any restraint on his power so expecting that he, and probably the Scots as well, were planning betrayal as soon as it suited them.



It would matter to the colonists, other rebels fleeing England and to a Charles who has secured the three kingdoms.



Now that would be an interesting scenario, if potentially nasty for Britain.

Steve

1.If Cromwell was really that nice,then Ulster would still belong to its catholic rightfull owners.
And since Parliament was supported by money from London City and Holland,Charles could not become true autocrat without conqering Holland first.

2.Charles would do anything to retake Scotland - which means that he eventually could agree to widraw from Ireland.But you are right,no independent Scotland as long as he lived.

3.Colonist mostly do not cared,rebels would go to Holland,and King would be more interested in retaking Scotland.

4.Why nasty? they would widraw after victory,all was would be left would be polish-style calvary in England.Otherwise effects would be exactly the same as if Charles win without them.
Althought...considering that polish gentry considered their country Republic rather then Kingdom/and partially was right/
result could be more support for Parliament among english gentry.

 

[Airedale260]

1.If Cromwell was really that nice,then Ulster would still belong to its catholic rightfull owners.

Speaking as a Catholic I’m calling bullshit on that. Yeah, the Plantations were problematic but the shit didn’t actually hit the fan until 1690 -that is, forty years after the wars ended.

Cromwell went in hard because he was tired of the Irish and the Scots further stirring shit up so they’d no longer be a threat to his countrymen and the fighting could end on favorable terms. Much like another commander who would go and wreck the shit out of the Iroquois in North America to stop them from supporting the British in the late 18th century. He was from Virginia, name was George something...

4.Why nasty? they would widraw after victory,all was would be left would be polish-style calvary in England.Otherwise effects would be exactly the same as if Charles win without them.
Althought...considering that polish gentry considered their country Republic rather then Kingdom/and partially was right/
result could be more support for Parliament among english gentry.

Actually, no, they had Cromwell’s Ironsides as well. Charles really didn’t have any solid commanders, and Koniecpolski, good as he may be, can only be in one place. So he focuses on Cromwell, while Fairfax and Monck are free to run around. Oh, and this assumes he can get past the navy, which is actually very supportive of the Parliamentarian cause and is also quite formidable on account of England relying on it to stop any invaders coming from the Continent before they can do anything.

Plus, unlike the Royalists, Cromwell and Co took the whole raising and training of their armies very seriously. Hell, two of the units that were part of the NMA are still part of the British Army today.[/QUOTE]

 

[stevep]

1.If Cromwell was really that nice,then Ulster would still belong to its catholic rightfull owners.
And since Parliament was supported by money from London City and Holland,Charles could not become true autocrat without conqering Holland first.

Airedale260 has already answered the 1st point. It was only really under the latter Stewards that large numbers of Scottish Presbyterians were settled in Ulster.

Parliament's importance was because it held the purse strings. That's what Charles wanted to crush it and remove any restrictions on his ability to raise taxes. The Dutch and the British were bitter rivals economically, hence the 1st-Anglo-Dutch_Wars, in 1652-54. I think your thinking of under William and Mary who deposed James II in 1688-89.

Actually Charles II did take part in two more wars with the Dutch, but the 3rd one was more motivated by his secret treaty with Louis XIV. Which was to partition the Netherlands but more importantly for Charles would ensure a regular subsidy from Louis which he hoped would make him independent of Parliament. Fortunately this failed as the Dutch successful managed to defeat the Anglo-French attack as it could have been disasterous for both Britain [autocratic monarchy restored] and Europe [neither Britain nor the Netherlands in a position to oppose Louis's schemes for wider conquests.]

2.Charles would do anything to retake Scotland - which means that he eventually could agree to widraw from Ireland.But you are right,no independent Scotland as long as he lived.

Its a distinct danger but he failed to conquer Scotland before. Also even if he wins quickly, heavy taxes without any restraint is likely to cause continued dissent in England. Which might mean another rebellion against his rule. This could end up failing but its not certain.

Given his character I can't see see Charles letting Ireland go either. Its part of his kingdom by divine right - at least as far as he's concerned. Also unlike his son's who in exile became favourable to Catholicism he's still very much a Protestant. As such an independent Catholic Ireland, even if not involved in pirate attacks on shipping, would be too great a threat to Britain. Teh basic reason why Britain felt it had to hold Ireland.

3.Colonist mostly do not cared,rebels would go to Holland,and King would be more interested in retaking Scotland.

He would definitely be more interesting in Scotland. I suspect that at least the 1st refugees would go to the continent 1st and probably few making the long trip across the Atlantic. Also S'task probably covers this better than I could with his comment above.

4.Why nasty? they would widraw after victory,all was would be left would be polish-style calvary in England.Otherwise effects would be exactly the same as if Charles win without them.
Althought...considering that polish gentry considered their country Republic rather then Kingdom/and partially was right/
result could be more support for Parliament among english gentry.

Because it makes a victory by Charles far more likely. As such then a very nasty period of totalitarian autocracy which could last several generations unless you get a more long sighted monarch or a bloody revolution, French style.

Airedale260 raises a good point about the Ironsides and more generally the NMA [New Modern Army] but those took time to be organised and trained and were a response to early defeats and the flaws of the Parliamentary forces. In a scenario with Polish help they might not have time to do such.

You do raise a point about the Polish nobles thinking of their state as a aristocratic republic but that might not be a significant factor, especially since the Polish king might be unwilling to send such people with the force. [And also Charles wouldn't want people who might find things in common with the people he was seeking to suppress.]

Anyway hope the above answer's your points.

Steve

 

[Circle of Willis]

They wouldn't flee to Virginia. Virginia, as noted above, was a crown colony and also institutionally Anglican with already well-established colonies and power structures (bear in mind, Virginia was colonized in 1606, so an entire generation had passed since it's initial colonization). Puritans would likely have fled north to the New England colonies, much like how in the OTL we saw some crown loyalists flee to the Virginia colony. If you saw an early American Revolution, it likely would have been without the southern colonies and been much more localized to New England. Which means it would end up failing spectacularly, as not only were those colonies much less developed by that time, you also would have had a much more loyal base of operations for Crown troops to operate out of to bring them to heel (Virginia). Something most people forget about the Revolutionary War was just how much of a lynchpin Virginia was to the conflict, because it was so removed from the major fighting until right at the end and had secured itself from British rule early on (as in, they drove the British governor out of the colony around the same time as the Battles of Lexington and Concord), it exported a lot of troops and supplies to the other rebellious colonies.

You got me to look up the involvement of the colonies in the ECW, which led me to the Battle of the Severn between Maryland's Carolean-aligned governor and Commonwealth-aligned rebel settlers. Interesting stuff to be sure, I didn't know about this before.

If Virginia ends up being the key for a victorious Charles to consolidate his triumph not just in Britain but also in the overseas colonies, and a Puritan uprising in New England gets flattened as a result (no doubt with further harsh reprisals for the Puritans who fled there and then rebelled anyway) - to tie this in with what Stevep has also said about the future of revolution in Britain and her colonies:

Hopefully he will be defeated at some point, as he's a utterly repulsive character, a total egomaniac who seems to have pretty much lack morals. Also England, let alone Britain as a whole back under an autocratic absolute monarchy isn't going to be a good place to be. Not to mention if he succeeds for a while there is the danger that the next revolt would be markedly more violent, say like the French revolution.

The Scots had a pretty good army and it took the NMA [New Model Army] under Cromwell to defeat them the two times they attacked England so I suspect defeating them won't be easy for the Royalists. Ireland has less well organised forces but a lot of fairly undeveloped lands and given the religious divide - as Charles I didn't start dabbling with Catholicism as his sons did - probably a hell of a lot of determination.

If he did gain control of the three kingdoms I wonder what happens with the American colonies? I think there was support for the monarchy in most of them - they seemed to have some opposition to the Republic until faced with force. However if Charles is replacing Parliamentary restraint in Britain how long would he be willing to have the colonies paying no taxes and pretty much self-governing, especially since they would be markedly more vulnerable - both to local natives and other powers at this stage. Could see a clash coming there if the worst happened and Charles won a clear victory in Britain.

If they got the chance to escape yes many would flee. Although it might be to the mainland, as the Puritans who founded Massachusetts went to the Netherlands 1st. Its a long way to N America, especially at this time and would he want yet more unreliable elements in the colonies? Might he try something like the French, who sought to prevent anything but loyal Catholics to emigrate to Canada. You could see a build up of more discontented people in the colonies but if Charles could get a firm grip of Britain he would be likely to want to confirm his control over the colonies. True its even harder for a state in Europe to project power over the Atlantic now than a century later but the colonies are markedly less populated and secure and society was more conservative then. Without a successful overthrow of the monarchy of OTL ECW the question of actually overthrowing a divinely supported monarch would have been a bigger issue. You might see a successful revolution but I think it would be unlikely to succeed unless Charles monarchy is too weak, which it might be. The rebels in the colonies would be so much weaker and would lack the boost of the pre-existing success against Charles of OTL.

Steve

If Britain goes absolutist and the Stuarts manage to crush all short-term revolts both at home and abroad (I doubt an English Civil War that's abruptly ended at Edgehill, not even lasting a year, would be called the English 'Civil War' ITL), thereby firmly replacing the notion of British liberty with their despotism and directing Britain's political evolution in the direction of the continental absolute monarchies, would this not butterfly away the American and French Revolutions as we knew them?

I'd imagine it would be rather difficult for the exact same kind of secular constitutionalist republicanism that defined the former, at least, to arise in the colonies of a Britain whose kings have gotten used to treating the Magna Carta (which the original American revolutionaries looked up to) as toilet paper. Perhaps the colonial unrest of the future would take on a more overtly and narrowly-focused Puritanical religious tinge - nurtured by resentment of and direct oppression by the Crown - or conversely a radical and militantly populistic bent resembling that of the French Jacobins and (even more) revolutionary left, following a more radicalized Leveller tradition?

 

[ATP]

Airedale260 has already answered the 1st point. It was only really under the latter Stewards that large numbers of Scottish Presbyterians were settled in Ulster.

Parliament's importance was because it held the purse strings. That's what Charles wanted to crush it and remove any restrictions on his ability to raise taxes. The Dutch and the British were bitter rivals economically, hence the 1st-Anglo-Dutch_Wars, in 1652-54. I think your thinking of under William and Mary who deposed James II in 1688-89.

Actually Charles II did take part in two more wars with the Dutch, but the 3rd one was more motivated by his secret treaty with Louis XIV. Which was to partition the Netherlands but more importantly for Charles would ensure a regular subsidy from Louis which he hoped would make him independent of Parliament. Fortunately this failed as the Dutch successful managed to defeat the Anglo-French attack as it could have been disasterous for both Britain [autocratic monarchy restored] and Europe [neither Britain nor the Netherlands in a position to oppose Louis's schemes for wider conquests.]



Its a distinct danger but he failed to conquer Scotland before. Also even if he wins quickly, heavy taxes without any restraint is likely to cause continued dissent in England. Which might mean another rebellion against his rule. This could end up failing but its not certain.

Given his character I can't see see Charles letting Ireland go either. Its part of his kingdom by divine right - at least as far as he's concerned. Also unlike his son's who in exile became favourable to Catholicism he's still very much a Protestant. As such an independent Catholic Ireland, even if not involved in pirate attacks on shipping, would be too great a threat to Britain. Teh basic reason why Britain felt it had to hold Ireland.




He would definitely be more interesting in Scotland. I suspect that at least the 1st refugees would go to the continent 1st and probably few making the long trip across the Atlantic. Also S'task probably covers this better than I could with his comment above.



Because it makes a victory by Charles far more likely. As such then a very nasty period of totalitarian autocracy which could last several generations unless you get a more long sighted monarch or a bloody revolution, French style.

Airedale260 raises a good point about the Ironsides and more generally the NMA [New Modern Army] but those took time to be organised and trained and were a response to early defeats and the flaws of the Parliamentary forces. In a scenario with Polish help they might not have time to do such.

You do raise a point about the Polish nobles thinking of their state as a aristocratic republic but that might not be a significant factor, especially since the Polish king might be unwilling to send such people with the force. [And also Charles wouldn't want people who might find things in common with the people he was seeking to suppress.]

Anyway hope the above answer's your points.

Steve

1.Autocratic rule was replaced by bankers rule ,and as a result people are as f***** as under Kings,but taxes are bigger and military is weaker.If we could have working Republic i would gladly choose it - but when all possibilities are bankers or Kings, i would always choose Kings,no matter how autocratic they are.

2.Since James was fixated on Scotland and they would rebel,then he would never have time to made lasting changes in England.Which mean,then even if he try,England Kings would not become absolute Monarchs,like in France.

3.There was also Maryland,when puritans made revolts becouse they could not prosecute catholics and kill jesuits.Becouse of religion tolerancy there.Only colonies with freedom of religion was run by catholics.
But you are right,colonies matter little.

4.Polish King had no private army,and when commoners could be soldiers there - even among winged hussarls - it was run by nobles.For whom nobles freedom was more important thing in the world.They would have no problems with punishing merchants or villagers,but rob their fellow nobles of their freedom ? As long as they were there,it was simply not possible.

And for them it was far more important then religion.They could agreed to marry their families to foreign gentry,sometimes to rich merchants/even jews,if converted/ but to catholic polish peasants ? You would not survive such proposition.

And MORE IMPORTANT - AUTORITARIAN KINGS WERE NEVER TOTALITARIAN.First genocide in France was made in Vandee by Republic.Victims of any totalitarian regime would beg to be prosecuted by Autoritarian Kings.

And all revolutions happened,when autoritarian Kings decided to cease to be autoritarian and made reforms.If all France Kings behaved like Louise 14,France would still be Kingdom and Superpower.

 

[stevep]

1.Autocratic rule was replaced by bankers rule ,and as a result people are as f***** as under Kings,but taxes are bigger and military is weaker.If we could have working Republic i would gladly choose it - but when all possibilities are bankers or Kings, i would always choose Kings,no matter how autocratic they are.

2.Since James was fixated on Scotland and they would rebel,then he would never have time to made lasting changes in England.Which mean,then even if he try,England Kings would not become absolute Monarchs,like in France.

3.There was also Maryland,when puritans made revolts becouse they could not prosecute catholics and kill jesuits.Becouse of religion tolerancy there.Only colonies with freedom of religion was run by catholics.
But you are right,colonies matter little.

4.Polish King had no private army,and when commoners could be soldiers there - even among winged hussarls - it was run by nobles.For whom nobles freedom was more important thing in the world.They would have no problems with punishing merchants or villagers,but rob their fellow nobles of their freedom ? As long as they were there,it was simply not possible.

And for them it was far more important then religion.They could agreed to marry their families to foreign gentry,sometimes to rich merchants/even jews,if converted/ but to catholic polish peasants ? You would not survive such proposition.

And MORE IMPORTANT - AUTORITARIAN KINGS WERE NEVER TOTALITARIAN.First genocide in France was made in Vandee by Republic.Victims of any totalitarian regime would beg to be prosecuted by Autoritarian Kings.

And all revolutions happened,when autoritarian Kings decided to cease to be autoritarian and made reforms.If all France Kings behaved like Louise 14,France would still be Kingdom and Superpower.

1) Autocratic rule was replaced by a mixed selection of elements initially dominated by the aristocrats. The key point was that the rule of law applied, to a greater or lesser degree. If Charles wins in England then the only 'law' is the will of the king. This was something Britain had seen before with some of the Plantagenet and Tutor monarchs.

2) Continued fighting in Scotland wouldn't have much impact in England once the king wins unless he fouls up things so badly that a desperate population, possibly supported by the Scots rebel against him.

3) Not accurate. The colony with the best reputation overall was Pennsylvania. There was discrimination, especially in the north where the Puritans were dominant but any degree of religious tolerance was relatively restricted across most of Europe at this time. Maryland was pretty tolerant but not the only colony. One of the results of the Treaty of Westphalia was that there was a general agreement that the religion of the prince [i.e. ruler] was the religion of the people, i.e. that you either convert to that or leave. It could be argued that Britain's problem with Ireland was that rule wasn't applied there. The Irish Catholics were discriminated against but not forced to convert or leave as occurred in so many other places on the continent. Only other substantial Christian religious minority I'm aware of in western Europe in the 17thC were the Huguenots in France and especially under Louis XIV they were brutally persecuted, many being forced to flee. Largely to the benefit of the Netherlands and Britain who they escaped to.

4) If the Bourbons had stayed like Louis XIV then the dynasty would probably had been destroyed earlier given his ego and obsession with power and conquest. Or have gone even more bankrupt than it was OTL in the 18thC.

You descibe a Poland where the aristocracy already had largely broken the monarchy, which was a factor in the decline of Poland and the eventual disastrous partitions at the end of the 18thC. I knew it was a fatal problem latter on but wasn't sure how bad it was in the 1640s. After all that was only a generation or so since the Poles had made a bid to establish themselves in Moscow.

 

[ATP]

1) Autocratic rule was replaced by a mixed selection of elements initially dominated by the aristocrats. The key point was that the rule of law applied, to a greater or lesser degree. If Charles wins in England then the only 'law' is the will of the king. This was something Britain had seen before with some of the Plantagenet and Tutor monarchs.

2) Continued fighting in Scotland wouldn't have much impact in England once the king wins unless he fouls up things so badly that a desperate population, possibly supported by the Scots rebel against him.

3) Not accurate. The colony with the best reputation overall was Pennsylvania. There was discrimination, especially in the north where the Puritans were dominant but any degree of religious tolerance was relatively restricted across most of Europe at this time. Maryland was pretty tolerant but not the only colony. One of the results of the Treaty of Westphalia was that there was a general agreement that the religion of the prince [i.e. ruler] was the religion of the people, i.e. that you either convert to that or leave. It could be argued that Britain's problem with Ireland was that rule wasn't applied there. The Irish Catholics were discriminated against but not forced to convert or leave as occurred in so many other places on the continent. Only other substantial Christian religious minority I'm aware of in western Europe in the 17thC were the Huguenots in France and especially under Louis XIV they were brutally persecuted, many being forced to flee. Largely to the benefit of the Netherlands and Britain who they escaped to.

4) If the Bourbons had stayed like Louis XIV then the dynasty would probably had been destroyed earlier given his ego and obsession with power and conquest. Or have gone even more bankrupt than it was OTL in the 18thC.

You descibe a Poland where the aristocracy already had largely broken the monarchy, which was a factor in the decline of Poland and the eventual disastrous partitions at the end of the 18thC. I knew it was a fatal problem latter on but wasn't sure how bad it was in the 1640s. After all that was only a generation or so since the Poles had made a bid to establish themselves in Moscow.

1.And now we have Will of the banks.Becouse if people stand to banks in court,banks win.If Charles break London City before it spawned Wall Street,world would be far better place.

2.If King must focuse on Scotland,then he would have no much time to doing anything elsywhere,including England.

3.Protestants could not made irish leave their own lands,becouse they need cheap slaves to work for them.They could not did it to their fellow protestants.

4.As long as autocrat remain autocrats,bancrupty is not problem for them.Becouse they always have money for their armies,and there is no organized oposition which could face them,just like in medieval times.

5.Unfortunatelly,Poland was arleady on road to its political grave.We take Moscow in 1610,but garrison capitulated in 1612 becouse our gentry....do not agree to pay extra taxes for war.
And without that we could send only 2.000 as relief force,which still defeated moscow in field,but could not break through field fortyfications.
Only reason why we do not lost Smoleńsk ,too is becouse one magnate/Sapiecha,i think/ paid crew from his own pocket.
So,when our gentry would defeat Cromwell ,they be OK with taxing merchants and farmers,but taxing good gentry like them????
they would not agree to that.

But that was polish problem from the start - we have some small tax for small army - border guard in fact which fought tatars - but when gentry twice agreed to big tax for big army,kings refused both times.Becouse they wonted more.

So,gentry was guilty - but as much as magnats and kings.

 

[stevep]

1.And now we have Will of the banks.Becouse if people stand to banks in court,banks win.If Charles break London City before it spawned Wall Street,world would be far better place.

2.If King must focuse on Scotland,then he would have no much time to doing anything elsywhere,including England.

3.Protestants could not made irish leave their own lands,becouse they need cheap slaves to work for them.They could not did it to their fellow protestants.

4.As long as autocrat remain autocrats,bancrupty is not problem for them.Becouse they always have money for their armies,and there is no organized oposition which could face them,just like in medieval times.

5.Unfortunatelly,Poland was arleady on road to its political grave.We take Moscow in 1610,but garrison capitulated in 1612 becouse our gentry....do not agree to pay extra taxes for war.
And without that we could send only 2.000 as relief force,which still defeated moscow in field,but could not break through field fortyfications.
Only reason why we do not lost Smoleńsk ,too is becouse one magnate/Sapiecha,i think/ paid crew from his own pocket.
So,when our gentry would defeat Cromwell ,they be OK with taxing merchants and farmers,but taxing good gentry like them????
they would not agree to that.

But that was polish problem from the start - we have some small tax for small army - border guard in fact which fought tatars - but when gentry twice agreed to big tax for big army,kings refused both times.Becouse they wonted more.

So,gentry was guilty - but as much as magnats and kings.

1) We have will of the banks because their been allowed to gain too much power. That is a failure of our politicians and population and is long after autocratic monarchy was a problem, in Britain at least. If autocratic monarchy lasted then there are zero human rights unless the monarch is intelligent enough to realise that you get more from people if you don't view then as expendable slaves.

2) The king, having gained control of England and suppressing dissent has a hell of a lot more power and resources to attack Scotland and Ireland with and unless he totally misjudges things [which is possible with an egotistical idiot like Charles] so much he prompts another rebellion its going to be difficult for resistance to get strong again.

3) Actually wrong. Cromwell and the Purtians decided to uphold the agreement Charles made with a number of merchant interests to fund the army Chjarles sent to suppress the Irish revolt, which prompted the establishment of a lot of Protestant landlords across much of Ireland but it could have gone a different way. If the Levellers had won out in Parliament it might have gone a lot better for England but possibly a lot worse for the Irish. In Ulster the area became majority Protestant because the bulk of the settlement was by poor Scottish peasants who worked the land themselves so Catholics weren't needed at all. But then this was long after Cromwell. The other point to remember was there was already a substantial English presence in the Pale, which had built up over the past few centuries. However they were Catholic and the failure to get an aggrement with them meant the 'Old English' ended up being merged with the Irish Catholic population. That was the primary area where the Commonwealth probably failed.

4) Actually wrong as if they go bankrupt too often then no one will be willing to lend to them. And there's only so much they can bled out of their peasants and townsfolk before the entire country collapses.

 

[ATP]

1) We have will of the banks because their been allowed to gain too much power. That is a failure of our politicians and population and is long after autocratic monarchy was a problem, in Britain at least. If autocratic monarchy lasted then there are zero human rights unless the monarch is intelligent enough to realise that you get more from people if you don't view then as expendable slaves.

2) The king, having gained control of England and suppressing dissent has a hell of a lot more power and resources to attack Scotland and Ireland with and unless he totally misjudges things [which is possible with an egotistical idiot like Charles] so much he prompts another rebellion its going to be difficult for resistance to get strong again.

3) Actually wrong. Cromwell and the Purtians decided to uphold the agreement Charles made with a number of merchant interests to fund the army Chjarles sent to suppress the Irish revolt, which prompted the establishment of a lot of Protestant landlords across much of Ireland but it could have gone a different way. If the Levellers had won out in Parliament it might have gone a lot better for England but possibly a lot worse for the Irish. In Ulster the area became majority Protestant because the bulk of the settlement was by poor Scottish peasants who worked the land themselves so Catholics weren't needed at all. But then this was long after Cromwell. The other point to remember was there was already a substantial English presence in the Pale, which had built up over the past few centuries. However they were Catholic and the failure to get an aggrement with them meant the 'Old English' ended up being merged with the Irish Catholic population. That was the primary area where the Commonwealth probably failed.

4) Actually wrong as if they go bankrupt too often then no one will be willing to lend to them. And there's only so much they can bled out of their peasants and townsfolk before the entire country collapses.

1.As Murray Rothbard in his book "Wall street,banks and american foreign policy" proved,USA is controlled by Wall Street from 1895.Which mean,that politicain failed long ago.
And you again mistaken Absolute Kings with commies or masons. Tell me,when exactly Kings genocided anybody? answer is never.Even Bloody Elisabeth in England and Ireland tortured to death no more then 50.000 catholics.If she was commie,there would be no living catholics in her state.
Absolute Kings rarely do anything to anybody who do not actively fight them.

2.And what wrong with absolute Kings in England ? they were no totalitarians,and they would not gave power to banksters from City,like english kings in OTL did.

3.So,Irish owners would be not only robbed,like in OTL,but genocided if Levellers win? i am not suprised,and i fail to see how it would serve England better.They would be genocider nation for eternity after that.

4.Who said about bleeding anybody? they never built great state,only strong army and navy.Every country could live ilke that.
With smart rules,of coyrse.Pinochet-like kings would have great kingdoms,agentinian junta like kings would indeed go bancrupt.
Austrian school of economy is amost exactly like spanish school from Salamanca in 16 and 17 th centuries.
Unfortunatelly spanish Kings never followed their advices.
But absolute King who would use Salamanca school would never go bancrupt.

 

[stevep]

1.As Murray Rothbard in his book "Wall street,banks and american foreign policy" proved,USA is controlled by Wall Street from 1895.Which mean,that politicain failed long ago.
And you again mistaken Absolute Kings with commies or masons. Tell me,when exactly Kings genocided anybody? answer is never.Even Bloody Elisabeth in England and Ireland tortured to death no more then 50.000 catholics.If she was commie,there would be no living catholics in her state.
Absolute Kings rarely do anything to anybody who do not actively fight them.

2.And what wrong with absolute Kings in England ? they were no totalitarians,and they would not gave power to banksters from City,like english kings in OTL did.

3.So,Irish owners would be not only robbed,like in OTL,but genocided if Levellers win? i am not suprised,and i fail to see how it would serve England better.They would be genocider nation for eternity after that.

4.Who said about bleeding anybody? they never built great state,only strong army and navy.Every country could live ilke that.
With smart rules,of coyrse.Pinochet-like kings would have great kingdoms,agentinian junta like kings would indeed go bancrupt.
Austrian school of economy is amost exactly like spanish school from Salamanca in 16 and 17 th centuries.
Unfortunatelly spanish Kings never followed their advices.
But absolute King who would use Salamanca school would never go bancrupt.

ATP

You need to read more about actual history. I detest the power of the modern banking interests but I don't have the view you seem to have that democracy or any other system than autocratic monarchy is terrible for the population being ruled. Its a problem that rose in Britain from ~1840 and later in other countries but could easily have been avoided. Even Britain was escaping from such a mess until Thatcher in 79. However even the worse plutocracy is better than the sort of autocratic state that someone like Charles I or Louis XIV, to name two of the examples we're mentioned already.

If autocratic rulers repeatedly default then they get no more money from bankers, either because bankers can move their resources elsewhere or because their destroyed all the bankers. [Which is also bad for the country because it greatly reduces the ability of anyone else to develop new industries, mines, agricultural resources etc]. From that point the regime can only support the military, and other necessary facilities, by current taxation, which is more limited. The military especially are very, very expensive, especially if your an hot-head who likes attacking neighbours [Louis being the obvious example here but plenty of others through history]. Also if your an autocrat with no limitations on your power then when you make a bad decision then it continues until you realise how bad it is. Which is probably way too late. A brutal idiot like Pinochet, bleeding his country dry of blood as well as money is a good example of what can go wrong. His policies meant he wasn't able to go on wars of expansion simply because he was too busy butchering his own people and preventing economic development.

I mentioned the possibility of what a Leveller dominated England might do in the face of continued hostility from the Irish Catholics. In that case what would result would probably be something like a steady replacement of them by English settlers, similar to what happened in the US from ~1790 onward. Or less destructively pressure to convert. It was actually a good thing for the Irish population that Cromwell 'sold out' as you might put it to commercial interests as they wanted land and keeping the peasants to work it.

There were plenty of cases of autocratic monarchs abusing their power and persecuting people. The aforementioned Hugonaughts in France were a classic case as Louis deliberately created the entire problem by voiding the existing Edict of Nantes and starting to persecute them again. This was totally unnecessary and considerably weakened France as well as the abuse and torture of many of his victims.

Have to cut it short as I need the machine for something else.

Steve

 

[ATP]

ATP

You need to read more about actual history. I detest the power of the modern banking interests but I don't have the view you seem to have that democracy or any other system than autocratic monarchy is terrible for the population being ruled. Its a problem that rose in Britain from ~1840 and later in other countries but could easily have been avoided. Even Britain was escaping from such a mess until Thatcher in 79. However even the worse plutocracy is better than the sort of autocratic state that someone like Charles I or Louis XIV, to name two of the examples we're mentioned already.

If autocratic rulers repeatedly default then they get no more money from bankers, either because bankers can move their resources elsewhere or because their destroyed all the bankers. [Which is also bad for the country because it greatly reduces the ability of anyone else to develop new industries, mines, agricultural resources etc]. From that point the regime can only support the military, and other necessary facilities, by current taxation, which is more limited. The military especially are very, very expensive, especially if your an hot-head who likes attacking neighbours [Louis being the obvious example here but plenty of others through history]. Also if your an autocrat with no limitations on your power then when you make a bad decision then it continues until you realise how bad it is. Which is probably way too late. A brutal idiot like Pinochet, bleeding his country dry of blood as well as money is a good example of what can go wrong. His policies meant he wasn't able to go on wars of expansion simply because he was too busy butchering his own people and preventing economic development.

I mentioned the possibility of what a Leveller dominated England might do in the face of continued hostility from the Irish Catholics. In that case what would result would probably be something like a steady replacement of them by English settlers, similar to what happened in the US from ~1790 onward. Or less destructively pressure to convert. It was actually a good thing for the Irish population that Cromwell 'sold out' as you might put it to commercial interests as they wanted land and keeping the peasants to work it.

There were plenty of cases of autocratic monarchs abusing their power and persecuting people. The aforementioned Hugonaughts in France were a classic case as Louis deliberately created the entire problem by voiding the existing Edict of Nantes and starting to persecute them again. This was totally unnecessary and considerably weakened France as well as the abuse and torture of many of his victims.

Have to cut it short as I need the machine for something else.

Steve

You did not read my post.I had nothing against real Republic - problem is,both old Poland and modern USA showed that it always end ruled by oligarchs.
So,i prefer Kings.Medieval Kings would be ideal,but absolute are still lesser evil then oligarchs..

And tell me,when exactly Louis 14 genocided anybody? even hugenots could go with their moneys.Every denizen of soviet,Mao or PolPot hell would dream about it.
First genocide in France was made in Vandee in 1793 - by republic.

 

[stevep]

You did not read my post.I had nothing against real Republic - problem is,both old Poland and modern USA showed that it always end ruled by oligarchs.
So,i prefer Kings.Medieval Kings would be ideal,but absolute are still lesser evil then oligarchs..

Have to disagree here. Even a corrupted democracy is better than an absolute dictatorship simply because there is are checks on the power of the dominant groups.

And tell me,when exactly Louis 14 genocided anybody? even hugenots could go with their moneys.Every denizen of soviet,Mao or PolPot hell would dream about it.
First genocide in France was made in Vandee in 1793 - by republic.

I never said genocide but they were treated very brutally by Louis, markedly worse than Britain treated the Irish to make an obvious comparison. Again I point out this was a stupid self inflicted wound as it could have been avoided if Louis hadn't been such an idiot or there had been some power to keep him in check.

 

[ATP]

Have to disagree here. Even a corrupted democracy is better than an absolute dictatorship simply because there is are checks on the power of the dominant groups.



I never said genocide but they were treated very brutally by Louis, markedly worse than Britain treated the Irish to make an obvious comparison. Again I point out this was a stupid self inflicted wound as it could have been avoided if Louis hadn't been such an idiot or there had been some power to keep him in check.

1.Corrupted democracy is no democracy but oligarchy,and there are no any real checks.And Oligarchies are no genociders,too - but they weak and aesy pray for any stronger country.Without possibility of any change from within which could save them.

Only oligarchy which lasted long was Venetia.All others falled,including Poland which fall quickly after oligarchs take over our Republic.

2.Louis could be stupid,and hugenot fate cruel - but compared what revolutions did,it was nothing.And oligarchs always led to that,becouse they are weak.
If Louis 16 treated his people like Louis 14,there would be no revolution. In other worlds - if he do not try stop be absolute monarch.