Begining and internal english staff: Let's say that after fleeing London he manages to beat all armies of Parlament and marches on London and crushes the Parlamentarians and them being executed or exiled/ecaped to America. The political effects would be creation of french style absolutistic monarchy. For example exepeling all Non-Anglical protestants to America, making nobility powerless and tax-free and giving the parlament the same power as Estates General adn crushes the rebelion that led to it in the first place. Another effect is that without parlament there would be no the Glouriouse Revolution, thus James II would manage to turn England Catholic, this would result in another wave of migration to America and massive Gallicization of England, aka by the war of Spaninish sucsesion would be effectivly second small france of France.
Geopoliticks: The main change would be that England would be an ally of France.
War of Spanish sucsesion: Due to England being a French ally, it would be a total French victory aka French creating PU with Spain, conquering Netherlands, taking the Imperial Crown and balkanizing Habsburg german holdings.
7 years war: This war would be French and alies against Russia, Prussia and American protestant rebels. This war would be won by the later side, due to the shear size of Russia and military geniouse of Friderich the Great.
I love this period, but my knowledge of the geography is shaky at best. I’d love to set the campaign in and around Oxford, but I’ve never been there and my knowledge of local geography around the period is practically nil. I’ve been doing a ton of background reading, but I’m getting intimidated by the reality of the place and how I might go about making it at least pseudo-historically “accurate.”
My players (we’re all American)aren’t history buffs, so I doubt they’d even catch something being off, but I’ll know. I need to decide whether to press forward with the real setting or to just give up and make a fantasy version ”inspired” by that conflict and setting. I kind of hate that idea, honestly, but I’m dealing with a lot of GM anxiety and feeling overwhelmed. Any input would be great.
For what it’s worth, I’m using GURPS. It’s going to be a low magic setting. Like, really low, but with cults and folkloric monsters lurking about in the corners of rye countryside, and the occasional pc use of astrology, alchemy, and divination.
I’ve played a lot of England recently, as well as a bit of Ireland. I’ve definitely enjoyed it so far, but there perhaps could be a few tweaks (the only country I’d rework entirely would be Wales):
I think the way the build up to the Civil War is done is a bit clunky. I don’t see a reasonable scenario where you can turn one of the northern states against HMMLR or one of the southern states against the Collabs. And even if you somehow managed to pull it off, you’d end up with troops spawning in an exclave that’ll be destroyed and likely giving up a Midlands state for the privilege.
Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy aspects of it. I like that the opposing side do focuses and actions in the background to counter you. But instead of bickering over territory in a rather performative exercise, I’d scrap that and look at orienting focuses and decisions around securing allied support, building up more materiel and shadow divisions, or attacking the other faction covertly.
For example, if you were playing Collabs, you could have Chesterton want to pursue much closer relations with Halder, Douglas-Home trying to sabotage HMMLR, and MacMillan looking to build up support in the South to raise more troops.
Otherwise, the game devolved into annoying performative clicking where you might snipe a state or two you didn’t expect, but won’t fundamentally change the state of play in all likelihood.
As for Wales, I don’t like the way John Morris is portrayed. It’s a very crude part and especially annoying as there’s no nuance to contrast with wholesome chungus Cymru Goch.
For one thing, Morris was and is a Labour member. Why he’s marketed as a conservative is beyond me. Welsh Labour back then was very different to modern Welsh Labour where their leader speaks Welsh. Neil Kinnock once denied the existence of a Welsh culture fundamentally different to general British culture. Welsh Labour’s heartland has also generally been the Valleys, Cardiff, and Swansea, as well as Port Talbot and Neath. Areas which have historically been associated with large influxes of non-Welsh moving for work, as opposed to the rural areas especially in the west and north that have far more Welsh speakers.
You can have a chauvinistic unionism still led by Labour, an institution that has dominated Welsh politics for nearly 100 years. It would be certainly more believable than some sort of “independent conservative” one. There should still be an ideological split within the Unionist coalition that
... keep reading on reddit ➡What do you think? I know I’d love it. I’ve always preferred the early modern period to ancient and medieval periods. Interested in if I’m a line in this or if others agree.
I appear to be missing some decisions. I am trying to play as HMMLR and destroy the collaborationists, and eventually join the OFN as a united Britannia, and then show that hun what-for, but first i need to, well, win the civil war.
In order to do that, It's clear that I need large reserves of weapons to fight with, and it seems like tanks would be a great idea. However, it says that the success of any gun(or tank)-running operation is reliant on the stability of the northern English states--low state stability, low chance of success. The problem is that there doesn't actually seem to be any options to increase state stability. There are options to decrease it, but that doesn't seem particularly helpful.
Additionally, the operations, which seem like they should be massively important in war-preparations, though everyone says they aren't, rely on local stability. Again, with no method to increase this stability. This seems like a minor problem. The posts I've read on here state that everything I just mentioned(gun running, state stability, operations) is entirely superfluous, but I would like to do them anyway just to read the event descriptions.
Particularly around the mid-1640s - I'm carrying out a creative project set during the times of Matthew Hopkins, the Witchhunter General and want to know how the war would effect the day to day lives of the average citizens, particularly in small towns and villages of Southern England where Hopkins carried out his actions.
Events that would have been seen as way more significant if their results lasted, rather than be undone (even partially).
Probably too vague of a question, but curious what kind of answers y'all think of
I was listening to Mike Duncan's Revolutions podcast, and at some point in this episode (concerning the armies of the English Civil Wars) he says this:
>The pikemen were usually bunched at the center of the battle line and operated much like an old Greek phalanx. They would line up 6 deep carrying 15 to 18 foot pikes and march forward until they hit the line of enemy pikemen.
>They were all supposed to be outfitted with a metal breastplate, but they were usually issued only a leathered buff coat, which you would think would make all of this a very messy and very stabby business; but in reality, being run through with a pike was actually a pretty rare thing. The goal was simply to win the contest known as the "push of pike". Which is exactly what it sounds like: you were trying to shove, push and knock off balance the other side until their ranks broke and ran off.
>Sometimes, the "push of pike" was a hell of a contest. But often, one side or the other just wasn't that into it, and after a perfunctory showing would break and run. Then there were my favourite times, when neither side was into it, and they would just kind of stand there and wave their pikes around to make it look like they were fighting, occasionally looking over their shoulders and hoping the generals way in the back were buying it.
(at the 03:43 mark, for those who prefer listening to it)
Nothing against Mike, I know he surely took this from a solid source. But he doesn't quantify the events he's talking about, which leaves me highly curious.
So I ask: what is the source for this? If it did happen like he describes, was it a single episode involving a dozen men or a widespread phenomenon throughout the conflict? If so, how did commanders deal with it?
Edit: I should not have referred to the "First English Civil War" in the title, since there is no implication by the podcaster that what I'm asking about happened in a certain phase of the conflict. Take my question as applying to the entirety of the English Civil Wars.
in fact in all conflicts involving the Reichspakt in Europe, the US has limited options of action while against japan you can send the USMC boys to destroy the japanese in Malaysia and Philippines, in England it remains only to look and wait with the fingers crossed, this in a country with easier geographic access (trough Scotland) than the jungles of Southeast Asia. Do the devs intend in any update to bring more options to take the cold war to Europe?
I'm struggling to understand - why were the global effects of the French Revolution way bigger than those of the English Civil War, despite the similarities?
For example, both were a series of conflicts. In each case, the initial conflict resulted in moderate outcomes, with the monarch simply conceding power, followed by a second conflict in which the monarchy was overthrown, and at least one other conflict, and in each case, an individual essentially seized power and embarked the country on imperialism, and finally the original monarchy was restored. And, both occurred in countries that were expanding colonial powers.
So why did French Revolution result in drastically bigger effects compared to the English Civil War?
(in reading order)
Becket
Lion in Winter
Richard Coeur de Lion
The Famous Chronicle of King Edward the First
Edward II
Edward III
Thomas of Woodstock
Richard II
Henry IV 12
Henry V
Henry VI 123
Edward IV
Richard III
King Charles I (play)
Henry VIII
Marie Tudor
A Game At Chess
Charles I
After learning about the events of the first civil war (1642-45) and writing an essay on it in college, I wish to understand whether it was indeed Parliamentary strengths, like the new model army, over Charles’, and his leadership e.g. Prince Rupert as commander which had initially caused the civil war to play out the way it did. I have established a historic overview of the situation but I wish to hear a historians opinion on this matter.
Book is historical fiction/romance
Plot: young woman in modern day goes to a party and takes part in a seance (I think?) passes out and wakes up in the past in a castle in England and she’s in the middle of giving birth in another woman’s body. She meets her husband and he figures out that she has changed and they fall in love and join the royalists in smuggling Prince Charles (not 100% on my English Civil War) out of the country to France during the English Civil War. Prince Rhupert of the Rhine is a prominent character in the book. I can’t remember what the book looks like. It was about 200-400 pages long. I borrowed this book from the library in the mid 90s I was in my mid teens. It wasn’t new when I read it.
The english civil war isn't ending, despite the HMMLR being victorious (they have defeated the facists and the cornwal). Furthermore, they only have 3 units and no focus tree or decisions.
Anyone else have this bug?
(I am playing on the latest version)
I'm curious what kind and how much of an effect the English civil wars had on the colonies. Did the colonies experience greater independence while attention was elsewhere? Did the civil wars drive emigration from the isles to the colonies? Were the sources of authority in various colonies in question?
When the ECW kicks of, neither the collabs nor HMMLR got any troops, nor do they produce any. No focuses as well. As a result, spilt England just sits there forever.
Anyone else got this bug? Any ideas how to fix it?
When the Civil war begins, the new focus tree doesn’t load and neither me nor collab england have any units.
