No English Civil War

[Aztekk]

I'm far from an expert in the topic, but I've been trying to understand how the English Civil War worked.

How could it be avoided? Maybe Charles I wins against the Scotts in 1639 and is therefore not forced to convene the Parliaments. Maybe his support of the Huguenots at the Siege of La Rochelle proved successful, enough to at least stall questions about religiosity. Any help?

 

[Analytical Engine]

Charles I never becoming king at all would help.

He was the "spare", and was never brought up to be king.

 

[wcv215]

Charles doesn't try to impose Anglicanism on the Scots. He was doing fine up until then. If Rupert had been more disciplined the war also could have easily ended in one battle at the beginning of the war, leaving the English Civil War as just a single battle that ends with Parliament crushed by the king and the king's powers expanded significantly.

 

[VVD0D95]

I'm far from an expert in the topic, but I've been trying to understand how the English Civil War worked.

How could it be avoided? Maybe Charles I wins against the Scotts in 1639 and is therefore not forced to convene the Parliaments. Maybe his support of the Huguenots at the Siege of La Rochelle proved successful, enough to at least stall questions about religiosity. Any help?

Charles wins the bishops war, he avoids imposing a common book if prayer on the Scots. Pymn dies before the long parliament sits, thus avoiding his vendetta against Stratford.

 

[Aztekk]

Charles wins the bishops war, he avoids imposing a common book if prayer on the Scots. Pymn dies before the long parliament sits, thus avoiding his vendetta against Stratford.

Would that keep the Roundheads silenced forever? Or at least for a longer time?

 

[VVD0D95]

Would that keep the Roundheads silenced forever? Or at least for a longer time?

Depends, the more centrist parliamentarians would probably find a way to content themselves with the kings reign. The extremists? Probably not

 

[HortenseMancini]

there are any number of places where the war could’ve ended with Charles I at least keeping his head.

 

[wcv215]

there are any number of places where the war could’ve ended with Charles I at least keeping his head.

Literally the end. Charles got his head chopped off because he was too goddamned stubborn to compromise on literally anything. They’d have let him abdicate at his trial if he’d been willing to. But nope.

 

[Aztekk]

Even if Charles I wins against the Scots, how would he collect money without a Parliament?

 

[wcv215]

Even if Charles I wins against the Scots, how would he collect money without a Parliament?

Same way he had been for the last decade.

 

[UnaiB]

@Comte de Dordogne

 

[Thomas1195]

Same way he had been for the last decade.

There would be another Civil War down the road, with even more Cavaliers defecting.

 

[Thomas1195]

Weaker Royal Navy, and if Willem II still dies, there would be an Anglo-Dutch War with the English being ass-whooped.

 

[The Professor]

@Comte de Dordogne

Why do this?

As to the OP, I assume we're just discussing the English portion of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms? So not the Bishops Wars and the Irish Confederate Wars etc?
The way to reduce that I think is to reduce Charles's need to control and prevent him alienating Parliament.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Literally the end. Charles got his head chopped off because he was too goddamned stubborn to compromise on literally anything. They’d have let him abdicate at his trial if he’d been willing to. But nope.

Hell, they'd likely even have let him keep his throne (and head) as a constitutional monarch, even into the last days of the trial.

 

[VVD0D95]

Why do this?

As to the OP, I assume we're just discussing the English portion of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms? So not the Bishops Wars and the Irish Confederate Wars etc?
The way to reduce that I think is to reduce Charles's need to control and prevent him alienating Parliament.

Perhaps also have Wentworth die before the Long Parliament meets to avoid that whole chaotic nonsense.

Hell, they'd likely even have let him keep his throne (and head) as a constitutional monarch, even into the last days of the trial.

Would they? The army was pretty adamant he had to go no?

 

[Thomas1195]

Hell, they'd likely even have let him keep his throne (and head) as a constitutional monarch, even into the last days of the trial.

He could have saved his head if he hadn't escaped for the last time.

Pym and Hampden recognized early that he must be subdued by force, unlike the rest of the Parliament. If they survived, they would have recognized that he must be dead after he escaped for the last time, and unlike Cromwell, they would have been able to influence the Parliament to that direction (a.k.a execution of Charles I). Once Charles I was executed, there would be no going back or simply installing Charles II after chopping off his father's head. Charles II would have certainly plotted revenge.

 

[VVD0D95]

He could have saved his head if he hadn't escaped for the last time.

Pym and Hampden recognized early that he must be subdued by force, unlike the rest of the Parliament. If they survived, they would have recognized that he must be dead after he escaped for the last time, and unlike Cromwell, they would have been able to influence the Parliament to that direction (a.k.a execution of Charles I). Once Charles I was executed, there would be no going back or simply installing Charles II after chopping off his father's head. Charles II would have certainly plotted revenge.

Pym and Hampden were two of the most dangerous and perhaps radical Parliamentarians, their deaths would no doubt have helped prevent a Civil War.