Surely you jest. Brussels is the capital of the Royaume de Bélgique / Koninkrijk België, headed by King Albert II. Other kingdoms within the European Union comprise: - Sweden, King Carl Gustaf XVI - Denmark, Queen Margarethe II - The Netherlands, Queen Beatrix, - Spain, King Don Juan Carlos. It appears to me that the abolition of several monarchies is a remote possibility, but I presume you'll know more than I do and are privy to the Great European Conspiracy.
Hold on! I think you'll find that it wasn't Cromwell that caused the problem, it was another one of those Stuarts. Being English and being King of England have rarely been the same thing. You may have a point there, and you could argue it was Edward I that really started it (a Frenchman), though Wikipedia seems to have forgotton that the Hammer of the Scots used Ireland and especially Ulster as his fortified stepping stone into Scotland. But if you ask an Irishman who the villain was I think they are most likely to say Cromwell and not just because of Droghedra. On a side note, there is a story that when Tony Blair first got to power there was a meeting arranged in the Foreign office between Robin Cook and the representatives of Eire. To show how this was a whole new government who understood the Republican point of view, who's portrait do you think they hung in the office.... Yup, staring at the Eire representative the whole time was Oliver Cromwell. The outcome of the meeting is unknown.... :p
You may have a point there, and you could argue it was Edward I that really started it (a Frenchman), though Wikipedia seems to have forgotton that the Hammer of the Scots used Ireland and especially Ulster as his fortified stepping stone into Scotland. But if you ask an Irishman who the villain was I think they are most likely to say Cromwell and not just because of Droghedra. :p Cromwell will always get a bad press - and rightly so for his savage excesses in Ireland. But the troubles between England and Ireland really started around 1050 (and not Edward I as earlier posted) when the struggle for the English throne began. Then, Earl Godwin and his dynastic offspring rebelled against Edward the Confessor. In the ensuing turmoil they were declared outlaw. They took flight and were given safe haven in Ireland by one of it's kings until the coast was clear for them to return. Godwin's son, known later to us as King Harold, also had recourse to seek an alliance with the same Irish allies prior to the invasion of England by William the Bastard. After the Battle of Hastings, a few members of Harold's surviving family sought refuge there again and from that time onward Ireland was marked down for special treatment by successive Norman kings of England. It's known that King John and others used the pool of Liverpool as their embarkation point for several military excursions into Ireland to punish it's nobility for their repeated resistance to the new Norman regimen in 'the hood'. As a result the Irish people had to endure centuries of persecution - but not before the first trial run against the entire Anglo Saxon/Dane people of England. That's where the class system began - something most people overlook nowadays....!
Anyone know a good book about the battles of the ECW with good battle maps & lists of regiments that fought there & the strength of each regiment ? I used to have one years ago but forgot what it was called.
hello Owen not sure if this has the total detail http://www.amazon.co.uk/Military-History-English-Civil-War/dp/0582772818/ref=pd_sim_b5
well,as i am a yank, and part of my family was scots, part was french,another was native american. i voted neither. at that time i would probably have said a pox on both your houses,lol!
What was the name given to the people who used to beat up recruiters from both sides, from East Anglia weren't they? Anyone any idea what I'm on about? ah, memory playing tricks. It was The Clubmen. Clubmen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Clubman Uprisings 1644-6
I always think of the period in English history know as the English Cvil War, not as King against Parliament but as the Rich nobles getting grid of a bad king.
I always think of the period in English history know as the English Cvil War, not as King against Parliament but as the Rich nobles getting grid of a bad king. Agree with the above. Much of Parliament wanted to make the King cede much of his divine right and had no time for Cromwells' ideals. So I would probably have erred with Parliament, but I am a royalist at heart.
I sort of agree with some of the above. I'll never go with the Hill-ite 'Revolution' hypothesis, it's just too much of a stretch for me. Rebellion - yes. Revolution - no. And the roots of that rebellion are far more complex than any class-war hypothesis can comfortably accommodate to my eye. 'Cromwell's Ideals' is an interesting point too. Hardly the great social liberator that he's sometimes painted as using modern interpretations of his actions and motivations. Again, it's complex, but if a point of origin must be found for his way of thinking, religion stood well before any thoughts of social levelling or improved democracy for that particular 'Chief of Men'.
Adam mentioned to me awhile back about the high casualties incured during the Civil Wars. I read this today in The English Civil Wars 1642-1651 by Peter Gaunt. Fatalities in the hundres of battles , skirmishes and raids that took place in England and Wales , together with the increased mortality through the spread of disease, caused something approaching 200,000 deaths- an overall death-rate in terms of the proportion of the population slighty higher than that suffered in the First World War and significantly higher than the Second .
Like I said, mate - Britain's bloodiest war by percentage of population. Such a shame that it gets comparatively low attention from the Military history crowd really. It's a fascinating chunk of warfare, politics, personalities, and social shift.
Adam mentioned to me awhile back about the high casualties incured during the Civil Wars. I read this today in The English Civil Wars 1642-1651 by Peter Gaunt. Fatalities in the hundres of battles , skirmishes and raids that took place in England and Wales , together with the increased mortality through the spread of disease, caused something approaching 200,000 deaths- an overall death-rate in terms of the proportion of the population slighty higher than that suffered in the First World War and significantly higher than the Second . If you want to know anything about the period of history called the English Civil War go here Welcome to Caliver Books. This forum is not the place and I have not the English skills to talk about this on line. (It would pain me to do so but I can) I can pwn people if they wish to post here. As my Mate Matthew Hopkins would do. I thought pwn got deleted when XXXX did lol.
'Pwn'? (which I'm highly tempted to remove now you bring it up) Why would you want to do that? Have you read the whole thread? Is this a competition? the period of history called the English Civil War Potentially interesting comment. Does that perhaps imply that you call it something else? Just asking, as there's a few potential descriptive candidates out there; some I'd agree with, some I wouldn't.
If you want to know anything about the period of history called the English Civil War go here Welcome to Caliver Books. This forum is not the place and I have not the English skills to talk about this on line. (It would pain me to do so but I can) . Thanks for link but I already know about them. Used to subscribe to ''18th Century Military Notes & Queries'' back in the late 1980s. Bought a few of their books too. My mate used to get their ''ECW Notes & Queries''. I don't understand why you say you haven't the English skills to talk about the ECW , have a try it'll be interesting. This thread is in the off-topic section of the forum so no worries on that.
Sorry if I came over a bit harsh it just one of them subjects I have a bee in my bonnet about. (Internet rage opps sorry) How can anyone know how many people died in the ECW we don't even know how push of pike worked. (re-enacts will tell you different). I don't think we should compare it with ww1 compare it with the 30 years war For how bloody it was. As for the name the English civil war:The first and second civil wars. The war in Ireland and the restoration of the monarchy.
'Push of Pike' is a term that doesn't really matter overly to me. Terminology perhaps indeed now somewhat hijacked by reenactors of varying viewpoints to justify or deny the competitive side of their current endeavours. The mechanics of Pike & Shot warfare are hardly a real mystery, there being a pointy bit at the end of that stick. However, the push or press in the context of actual crushed up physical pushing seems a reasonable hypothesis when large bodies of men armed with that unwieldy weapon came together, maybe not the primary intention but a not entirely misunderstand-able result of mass of men and increased disorganisation after contact. The odd debate about it also always seems to ignore the two wings of Muskets in the 'correctly' composed regiment of the time. I think the passionate reenactor debate on the correct tactical score is basically a bit daft, and has more to do with any genuine recreation of that style of fighting with correctly sized units being impossible without much mangling, stabbing, & bleeding going on, so they fall out among themselves over trivia (and forget in the process, that most choose one style or another as the only true way, because they find that particular style more fun). It can be said that it's an inherent and pretty common failing of reenactment, particularly in such long-established groups as ECW ones, to sometimes forget just how brutal the actual use of weapons was intended to be, or even to equate the weapons to the very small units they deploy, rather than a contemporary block of maybe several hundred Pike men. Which happened? Point or press?.. Both, I'd say, though the intention was definitely point, and a mangled press meant things had gone wrong. As Owen quoted, the 'bloodiest' thing is always presented in the context of percentage or proportion of population, and 'British' warfare. Though precise figures may be somewhat sketchy (aren't they always), the Early modern wasn't entirely without records, and reasonable estimates can, and have, been made that equate to a remarkable butcher's bill per capita. More in total, and per capita, may indeed have died in the 30 years of horror across the channel for the states involved, but they were not, on the whole, British. Did the ECW lead to the deaths of a higher percentage of the 'British' population than any other conflict involving that country?.. it seems reasonable to say so. Naming it - semantics shumantics . Everybody with an interest knows what's meant by 'English Civil War', even though it's more correct to make that 'War' plural. It's like the 'what is a tank' thing so prevalent in our own specific area of modern military nerdism - I'm not sure it really matters. The only semantic option I have a problem with is when it's referred to as some kind of populist revolution.
