I've given up on trying to win as them thanks to HOI4's dogshit combat system and the overwhelming advantage the collabs get. On the difficulty scale map, they should be a tier 1 level nation.

https://i.redd.it/mt5c44vzm7c11.png

I know you can boost them in custom but as the US how useful is using the CIA to support them. How can you get the AI to win as them?

Hey folks. I'd love to get book recommendations on the English Civil War, the reasons and politics behind it, the battles and struggles, as well as the people who were at the center of it. More narrative/less academic tone greatly preferred. Thanks in advance!

I have a feeling King Charles would have had a much better chance of winning the war if another country had directly aided the Royalists, so why didn't they? Was Charles that unpopular of a figure to the rest of Europe?

And will they get a happy ending if i decriminalize LGBT?

Not that I never heard about it but as the first case of a popular uprising deposing a monarch in Europe you'd think it would get a little more attention for its influences on the Constitution, and representative republics in general, as opposed to the Magna Carta, the French Revolution, or the Greek city states, which they push pretty hard. A lot of the demands made of King Charles were the same as George III's: no taxes without parliamentary approval(no taxation w/o representation), right to habeas corpus, no forced billeting, etc.

'''

The Origins of the English Civil War: An Anthology, Part 1

I've read books that pertain to the Civil War and its origins. I thought it'd be worthwhile to assemble and order relevant material that I've extracted from 3 of those works (The English Civil Wars, Blair Worden.. Leviathan, David Scott.. White King, Leanda de Lisle). I tend to do a lot of highlighting, so what follows are just my own distillations of those sometimes several page long passages that particularly interest me. Think of it as a series of snapshots rather than a comprehensive narrative. The modern conception seems to be that a violent conflict wasn't inevitable, that there was no preordained unfolding of history (marxist or otherwise), but I tend to think that an anti-monarchical backlash was in a sense irresistable once protestantism was combined with a relative lack of aristocratic autonomy, once a civic-legal mentality replaced the historic chivalric-military one. A majority of peers may have supported Charles, but by the 1640s enough had turned on their king to tip the scales.

(English Civil Wars, 14) England was traditionally more centralised than the continent. The local power of landowners, incl magnates, depended on royal approval. The largely legalistic education required to handle the increasing scope of local administration (16th cent) 'equipped them, should consensus break down, to make trouble: not through armed resistance, which from James's accession until the breakdown of Charles I's rule seemed a thing of the past, but through civilian means, and especially in parliament. From the late sixteenth century the crown sensed a weakening of its position. The gentry, together with the population at large, were increasing in number; so was the composition of the House of Commons; and the greater the number of candidates for office and favour, the smaller the proportion whom the crown had the resources to reward.' There was a heightening as well as broadening (to merchants, lawyers, constables, etc) of political awareness (e.g, a new found reverance for the common law, and other medieval precedents, as guarantor of 'liberty').

(English Civil Wars, 17) 'Where the kings of France and Spain set the estates, and the classes they represented, against each other, in England there were no classes to divide. Lords and Commons were separate political orders but not separate economic or political interests. Primogeniture produced intermarriage and social fluidity between peers

Historical example is that of the Portuguese court escaping to Brazil during the Napoleonic Wars.

Just wondering if anyone else is interested in seeing either of these eras in a future game. In my opinion, they would be great settings to explore as far as historical content, proper swordplay, and reigniting the Assassin/Templar philosophical conflict once again.

Would you be interested in this, and if so what would you include?

>Even after two years, the fact that a civil war was being fought was not universally known across England. On reaching Marston moor, some soldiers discovered a farm worker going about his business. When Soldiers told the farm worker to be gone, the disgruntled labourer asked why he should move. When told he was standing on a field that was about to host a battle between the King and Parliament, he said: “Whaat, has them two fallen out, then?”

• Prince Rupert: The last Cavalier by Charles Spencer

Ok so I'm currently a history student and am doing a course on the English Civil War, 1640-1660 (broadly taking in its lead up and resolution), which was when the English King and Parliament went to war over a multitude of issues including money and the King becoming more undemocratic: this ultimately resulted in the death of the King, Charles 1st, by execution, an unparalleled event at the time, and the first modern Republic discounting the Greeks and Romans.

It's been noted before in other posts how the certain elements of the Age of Madness trilogy are linked to this period, namely with the Burners and Breakers mirroring political groups that sprung up during the War such as the Diggers, who desired proto communism, and Levellers, who desired a democratic system similar to today's Britain, much like the goals of the Breakers.

Throughout and after the War (1650s), merchants, bankers and other members of the Middle class gained political power by becoming members of Parliament, much like the Open Council desires in A Little Hatred. However, by 1660 the King was back in power and firmly placed after a decade of political unrest as no one at the time knew how to effectively run the state without a monarch.

APOLOGIES FOR THE HISTORY LESSON

Enter Bayaz's Plan in the new trilogy: we know, through Sulfur, Bayaz is stirring trouble to perhaps pave the way for a 'stronger and better order'. With the growing tensions of Leo/Savine and Orso/Rikke by the end of the novel, we could perhaps see a Union Civil War for the Throne play out in the next two books.

I believe this because of how after the English Civil War, the monarchy had only just been restored but it was also extremely popular due to poor leadership in its absence. The new King, Charles 2nd, took control of the country once more and the power of Parliament, and the middle class, was scaled back tremendously.

Now, we know that the middle class of the Union, chiefly the Lords on the open council who are clamouring for more power and more rights, and potentially Leo/Savine could gather these Lords to war against Orso and Bayaz. I believe that ultimately this will prove unsuccessful, and Joe will parallel real history in the story by having Bayaz use the chaos of this Civil War to remove all the troublesome Lords clamouring for democracy and instead reaffirm the power of the 'King' (himself) by continuing the old way of Rule used in the Union.

I think that we will see a continuation of Bayaz's po

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.

As an Englishman, I learnt a lot about our civil war (Royalists vs Parliamentarians) in school. It’s an incredibly interesting time period, when pikes and swords were used as well as guns and cannons, and the political side would be interesting too.

Despite both the American civil war and the English civil war being a two sided conflict, there were many iconic players on both sides in both the English civil war and the American civil war, so the allegiance could work a bit like Fall Of The Samurai’s Boshin War, which was also a conflict between two sides albeit with more independent clans within each side.

I was thinking about the English civil war only as a Saga, but I was listening to the song ‘Clear The Way’ by Iced Earth and it made me want to play an American civil war total war game too. Also, the fact that the states were more autonomous and not yet properly federalised should be easy to work with. You could do it much like Fall Of The Samurai and it would be quite good.

My understanding was was that at the time of the English civil war the colony's were effectively autonomous, so how did the civil war in England affect them. Did they go on as if everything was normal, did different colony's take sides, were there royalists and parliamentarian factions in the colony's, and did fighting ever break out related to the civil war in England.

The wiki on the English Civil War mentions Marxian interpretations as a class-war between the monarch and bourgeoisie are now rejected on the bases described. One of which is that parliament was not "progressive", without expanding further. What is this supposed to mean and why, if true, does this contradict the Marxist interpretation?

Is wikipedia correct that the conflict does not lie neatly across class lines or is there still a strong argument for class-antagonisms playing a significant role in the conflict (or both)?

Thanks, in advance.

Looking to fill a few holes in my collection while I can't get to my LCS -- I've found a few of these on dealer sites, but I'd figured I'd ask the community first and support the community. I'll admit that a lot of what I'm looking for is fairly vague and I'll apologize in advance that I can be a bit picky with what I pick out.

Looking for (in no particular order):

• Jacobite Gunmoney - any denomination/date/month is fine, looking for coins in any condition if they're cheap enough

• (English) Civil War issues - any denomination, I've got quite a few of these already, but they're always fun to have duplicates for die studies

• Shooting medals/thalers - really depends on the design, I'd prefer silver vs bronze (and I must admit I can't afford the gold (or platinum)!), I've got a few in mind, but I don't want to limit myself. I like the ones with personifications of the state of issue

• Hammered issues - worn/unidentified ones are fine too, my life doesn't have much mystery right now, so a small pile of unknown medieval coins would be fun as long as they weren't very expensive. Silver is preferred over bronze/copper

• European hallmarked silver, particularly interested in unknown/provincial hallmarks and British (English, Scottish, Welsh)/Irish hallmarked silver. Not interested in silver plated items or pewter. More interested in the hallmarks than the items themselves so the actual piece matters less to me than the hallmarks. The older the better, mostly interested in Victorian or earlier pieces, but I'd make exceptions for some art noveau pieces as well as British foreign hallmarked items (that is, a silver item that was foreign made but stamped with British hallmarks and either "F" or the assay office foreign mark). Special commemorative assay marks also may be considered as I'm missing a few of them.

• Silver European Medals - particularly interested in British ones, but other ones considered, the older the better, not really interested in any issued after WWII. Particularly interested in Eimer 115/116. Will consider old (Georgian and earlier) base metal medals or cased base metal Victorian issues

I can pay with either Google Pay or PayPal and I'm located in the US. PMs are easier than Reddit Chat for me -- sometimes chats don't show up depending on what device I'm using to access Reddit :(

Welcome to the 32nd part of our open series of "What do you know about... X?"! You can find an overview of the series here

Todays topic:

The English Civil War

The English Civil War was a series of conflicts and political strife that broadly pitted two sides against one another: the Royalists and Parliamentarians. At the core the conflict reflected a power struggle between the English monarch one the one hand and parliament on the other. Before the Civil War, the role of Parliament in the governance of England was far more modest than it would later become. Charles I as others before him largely saw Parliament as an advisory body that he could summon at his will, primarily as a means of raising revenue. However other groups saw Parliament as a much more important instrument that was meant to safeguard their rights and privileges and act as a check on tyrannical power. While these tensions first manifest themselves in the form of political intrigue, soon they spilled into a series of bloody wars. When the dust settled Charles I was executed and the English monarchy was replaced first by the Commonwealth of England. In this new state, power was primarily (at least nominally) vested in the hands of Parliament, however within a few years Parliament was forcibly dissolved and real power fell into the hands of Oliver Cromwell who styled himself Lord Protector of a Protectorate that included England, Scotland and Ireland.

So, what do you know about the English Civil War?

Being in lock-down has prompted a lot of nostalgia!

I recall enjoying reading “Children of the New Forest” when I was young (I’m 52 now).

Now I’m looking for some recommendations for a good fictional book set during the English Civil War.

Be keen for it to have elements of the supernatural, witchcraft and magick.

Thanks for your help!

During history it seems we (England) have chuffed a lot of people off, during the English civil war we would have been divided and easy to invade or lose territories.

we've pretty much always been fighting wars on multiple fronts, did we lose any thing? I'm asking because I'm self taught, I can't believe that our civil war isn't taught in schools. America love talking about their founding and their consequent civil war.

If you went back in time and had to choose which side to fight for, which would it be: Oliver Cromwell or King Charles the 1st?

On one side King Charles frequently changed taxes without Parliament's consent and took the Nation's economy into his own hands. One the other hand, Oliver Cromwell ruled as a Authoritarian who outlawed Roman Catholicism and treated the Irish poorly.

Which side was better?