-- History Notes –

By Adam Sakr

The Early Tudors

Henry VII (Pages 184–185)

Henry VII founded the Tudor dynasty after defeating Richard III at the
Battle of Bosworth in 1485, bringing an end to the Wars of the Roses.
He married Elizabeth of York to unite the warring houses of Lancaster
and York, helping to stabilise the country after decades of conflict. He
was a shrewd ruler who avoided expensive wars, strengthened royal
finances, and limited the power of the nobility by using bonds and
recognisances (financial penalties for disloyalty). Henry encouraged
trade, especially with Burgundy and Italy, and sought to increase
England’s international standing through diplomacy and calculated
marriages for his children. His cautious and pragmatic leadership
created a secure foundation for his successors.

Young Henry VIII (Pages 186–187)

Henry VIII became king in 1509 at the age of 17. Handsome, athletic,
and intelligent, Henry was popular at first. He was a keen sportsman,
a musician, and a scholar. Early in his reign, Henry distanced himself
from his father’s frugal policies and instead pursued glory through war,
especially against France. He also reinforced his authority through the
execution of potential rivals and displayed his power through grand
court events. Henry initially maintained strong ties with the Catholic
Church, even earning the title "Defender of the Faith" from the Pope
for criticising Martin Luther. However, as his reign progressed, his
desire for a male heir and growing frustrations with papal authority
would cause a massive religious upheaval.

Henry VIII – First Wife and Problems (Pages 188–189)

Henry’s first wife, Catherine of Aragon, was a Spanish princess and

the widow of his older brother, Arthur. Their marriage lasted over 20
years, but Catherine only gave birth to one surviving child: Mary.
Henry, desperate for a male heir to secure the Tudor line, believed the
marriage was cursed. When the Pope refused to annul the marriage,
Henry broke with the Catholic Church, leading to the English
Reformation. He declared himself Supreme Head of the Church of
England in 1534 through the Act of Supremacy. This marked the
beginning of religious changes in England and severed ties with the
Pope, establishing royal control over religious matters.

Henry VIII – Next Wives (Pages 192–193)

Henry VIII had six wives in total:

●​ Anne Boleyn – Gave birth to Elizabeth, but failed to produce a

son. Executed for alleged adultery in 1536.
●​ Jane Seymour – Gave birth to Edward VI, Henry’s only male
heir. She died shortly after childbirth.
●​ Anne of Cleves – A political marriage with a German princess
that was quickly annulled. Henry found her unattractive.
●​ Catherine Howard – A cousin of Anne Boleyn, she was young
and lively but executed for adultery.
●​ Catherine Parr – A Protestant who outlived Henry and helped
restore relations with his children. Henry’s marriages were
shaped by his obsession with securing a male heir, as well as by
shifting political and religious alliances.

Edward VI – The Boy King (Pages 194–195)

Edward VI became king at age 9 after the death of Henry VIII. As he
was too young to rule alone, a regency council, first led by his uncle,
the Duke of Somerset, and later the Duke of Northumberland,
governed in his name. Under Edward, England became much more
Protestant. Churches were stripped of decorations, altars were
replaced with simple communion tables, and services were held in
English rather than Latin. The Book of Common Prayer was
introduced in 1549 and revised in 1552 to reflect more radical
Protestant theology. Edward died young at age 15 in 1553. To ensure
Protestant continuity, he named Lady Jane Grey as his heir, but she
was overthrown within days by Mary I.

Mary I – "Bloody Mary" (Pages 196–197)

Mary I, daughter of Catherine of Aragon, came to the throne after

Edward VI’s death and Lady Jane Grey’s brief rule. A devout Catholic,
Mary sought to reverse the Protestant reforms of her father and
brother. She restored papal authority and repealed the religious
changes made under Edward. Her marriage to Philip II of Spain was
unpopular, and she faced rebellion. Most controversially, she
persecuted Protestants, burning over 280 people at the stake, which
earned her the nickname “Bloody Mary.” Although Mary’s reign was
only five years (1553–1558), it was a period of intense religious
conflict. Her failure to produce an heir meant that the throne passed to
her Protestant half-sister, Elizabeth I.
Elizabeth I’s Reign (1558–1603)
Background: Elizabeth I became Queen in 1558 after the death of
her half-sister, Mary I. Elizabeth was well-educated, determined, and
politically shrewd. Her 45-year reign (the Elizabethan Era) is often
regarded as a golden age of English history. It was marked by relative
religious peace, flourishing arts and exploration, and the defeat of
foreign threats. However, Elizabeth also faced serious challenges
including religious strife, plots against her life, and threats of invasion.
She never married or had children, earning nicknames like the “Virgin
Queen,” and used her single status as a political tool, portraying
herself as “married to England” for the good of her people.

Religious Settlement and Tensions

One of Elizabeth’s first priorities was to ease the religious turmoil that
had divided England during the reigns of her Catholic sister Mary I and
Protestant brother Edward VI. In 1559, Elizabeth established the
Elizabethan Religious Settlement, which aimed to create a
moderate Protestant Church of England that most people could
accept. The Act of Supremacy (1559) re-established the monarch as
Supreme Governor of the Church, and the Act of Uniformity (1559)
set out a common prayer book. The Church’s doctrines were later
summed up in the 39 Articles of 1563, which were a compromise
between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Elizabeth’s approach
was one of moderation – she famously said she did not want to “make
windows into men’s souls,” meaning she would not inquire into her
subjects’ private beliefs as long as they conform outwardly. This
compromise saved England from the kind of bloody religious civil wars
that tore apart France and other countries in the 1500s.

Despite the settlement, religious tensions persisted. Extreme

Catholics and extreme Protestants (Puritans) were both dissatisfied.
Many Catholics viewed Elizabeth as illegitimate and a heretic because
the Pope had never accepted Henry VIII’s divorce from his first wife
(Elizabeth’s mother, Anne Boleyn). In 1570, Pope Pius V
excommunicated Elizabeth, calling on Catholics to reject her
authority and even encouraging plots to overthrow her. After this,
Elizabeth’s government became less tolerant of Catholics. Harsh laws
were passed against recusants (Catholics who refused to attend
Anglican services) and Jesuit priests who secretly entered England
were hunted. Catholic plots against Elizabeth’s life emerged, often
with support from abroad. For example, the Ridolfi Plot (1571),
Throckmorton Plot (1583), and Babington Plot (1586) all aimed to
replace Elizabeth with her Catholic cousin Mary, Queen of Scots.
These plots increased distrust and led to crackdowns. Puritans on the
other extreme pressed for more Protestant reforms; Elizabeth resisted
their demands, preferring to maintain the middle way. Overall,
Elizabeth’s religious policy — a firm Protestant Church with some
Catholic-style rituals — largely succeeded in avoiding open conflict,
and most of her subjects accepted it over time.

Political Challenges and Mary, Queen of Scots

Elizabeth’s reign was not without political struggles. As a female

monarch in a male-dominated society, she had to prove her capability.
Many in Parliament urged her to marry and produce an heir to secure
the succession, but Elizabeth steadfastly refused to marry, using the
prospect of marriage as a diplomatic bargaining chip instead. By
remaining single, she retained independent power and also cultivated
an image of the “Virgin Queen,” claiming to sacrifice personal
desires for England’s welfare. This became a source of unity and even
admiration among her people, as Elizabeth cast herself as a
mother-figure to the nation.

A major domestic threat to Elizabeth was her cousin Mary Stuart,

Queen of Scots. Mary was a Catholic with a strong claim to the
English throne, and many Catholics at home and abroad considered
Mary the rightful queen instead of Elizabeth. Forced to abdicate her
own throne in Scotland, Mary fled to England in 1568 seeking
Elizabeth’s protection. Instead, Elizabeth kept Mary under custody for
19 years. During this time, Mary became the focus of numerous
Catholic plots. For instance, the Babington Plot of 1586 conspired to
assassinate Elizabeth and place Mary on the throne. Elizabeth was
deeply reluctant to execute a fellow monarch (she feared setting a
precedent for regicide and provoking Catholic powers). Nevertheless,
evidence of Mary’s involvement in plots was undeniable – her own
letters approved plans to kill Elizabeth. Under pressure from her
advisors and Parliament, Elizabeth finally agreed to Mary's execution.
Mary, Queen of Scots, was executed in 1587 for treason, a decision
Elizabeth agonized over. Mary’s execution sent shockwaves through
Europe – many Catholics saw it as the martyrdom of a Catholic
queen. King Philip II of Spain, in particular, was furious that Protestant
England had killed a Catholic monarch, and this became one of the
factors pushing him to launch the Spanish Armada the following year.

Beyond Mary, Elizabeth faced other political challenges: there were

rebellions such as the Northern Rebellion (1569) by Catholic nobles,
which she suppressed. Ireland, largely Catholic, posed difficulties –
Spanish aid to Irish rebels was a fear (indeed, Spain attempted to use
Ireland as a backdoor for invasion). Elizabeth also had to manage her
often tense relationship with Parliament. She summoned Parliament
only when necessary (just 16 times in 45 years) mostly for approving
taxes and laws. Elizabeth was skillful in handling Parliament: she used
flattery and rhetoric to get her way, and if Commons passed bills she
disliked (for example, pressing her on the succession or religious
reforms), she vetoed them or forbade discussion on certain topics.
However, she generally avoided direct confrontations and never let
disputes get out of hand. This careful management helped maintain
stability.
Domestic Policies and the “Golden Age”

On the home front, Elizabeth’s England experienced both prosperity

and hardship. The term “Elizabethan Golden Age” reflects the
flourishing of English culture: playwrights like William Shakespeare
and Christopher Marlowe wrote enduring works; poets, artists, and
musicians thrived under Elizabeth’s patronage. Elizabeth loved the
theatre and attended plays (for instance, she watched Shakespeare’s
A Midsummer Night’s Dream). English pride and national identity
bloomed, especially after the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588
(which was celebrated in art and literature).

Economically, Elizabeth’s government promoted trade and

exploration. Adventurous sea captains such as Sir Francis Drake, Sir
Walter Raleigh, and Sir Humphrey Gilbert embarked on daring
voyages. Drake circumnavigated the globe (1577–1580), claiming new
lands and raiding Spanish treasure ships. Raleigh attempted to
establish colonies in North America. In 1600, Elizabeth chartered the
East India Company to expand trade in Asia. These actions laid
foundations for England’s later global empire.

Elizabeth also dealt with social issues. England’s population was

rising and economic changes (like the enclosure of farmland for sheep
pastures) displaced many peasants, contributing to poverty. To
address this, Elizabeth’s government implemented the Poor Laws
(especially the Act of 1601), which for the first time put in place a
system where local parishes were responsible for helping the
“deserving” poor – an early form of social welfare. While primitive, it
was an attempt to maintain order and support the needy. Law and
order in the countryside were enforced by unpaid local justices of the
peace, whom Elizabeth relied on to administer her policies. For the
most part, the country was stable internally; a contemporary bishop
even remarked that England was “never better in worldly peace... and
abundance” than under Elizabeth.
Late in the reign, there were difficulties. The 1590s brought bad
harvests, high food prices, and outbreaks of disease, causing
economic hardship for many. Prolonged war with Spain after 1588
strained the royal finances – Elizabeth had to fund campaigns in the
Netherlands, France, and Ireland to counter Spanish influence.
Though Elizabeth was frugal, by 1600 England was in debt and facing
economic strain. Discontent emerged briefly in events like the Earl of
Essex’s rebellion in 1601 (an uprising by a former favorite of the
Queen), which Elizabeth put down. Despite these challenges,
Elizabeth maintained her grip on power and the affection of her
subjects.

Elizabeth’s Leadership Style and Legacy

Queen Elizabeth I is remembered for her remarkable leadership

style. She combined firmness with finesse, showing strong personal
character yet remaining politically agile. She deliberately cultivated a
majestic royal image – wearing lavish gowns and jewels to look every
inch a monarch, sitting for portraits laden with symbols of power and
purity (such as pearls and a globe under her hand), and embarking on
royal “progresses” (tours) around the kingdom to be seen by her
subjects. This fostered loyalty and allowed people to feel a personal
connection to their Queen. Propaganda depicted her as “Gloriana”
(the glorious ruler) and as a semi-divine figure blessed by God. At the
same time, Elizabeth could be down-to-earth and showed great
charisma in public speaking.

One famous example of her leadership was during the crisis of the
Spanish Armada in 1588. As England braced for invasion, Elizabeth
visited her troops at Tilbury and delivered a rousing speech. She
declared, “I know I have the body of a weak, feeble woman; but I have
the heart and stomach of a king, and of a King of England too.” This
inspirational speech galvanized the soldiers. Elizabeth’s ability to
inspire confidence was a key part of her success as a leader.
Elizabeth was also adept at choosing talented advisors and using a
“divide and rule” strategy with her court. She appointed skilled
statesmen like William Cecil (Lord Burghley) as her Secretary of
State and Sir Francis Walsingham as her spymaster and advisor.
They, along with a small Privy Council, helped her govern effectively.
Walsingham’s secret network of spies uncovered plots against
Elizabeth, such as the Babington Plot, allowing her to pre-empt
threats. Elizabeth listened to her counselors but made the final
decisions herself. She could be temperamental or indecisive at times,
but when pressed she showed decisiveness – for instance, agreeing
to Mary Stuart’s execution when it became absolutely necessary for
security.

In her dealings with foreign powers, Elizabeth practiced cautious,

pragmatic diplomacy. She generally avoided expensive wars,
preferring to aid allies indirectly (such as secretly supporting the Dutch
rebels against Spain) rather than sending large English armies
abroad. This caution helped England avoid being dragged into the
broader wars of religion on the continent for much of her reign. Only
when Philip II’s aggression grew too great did England directly engage
in war (the Armada and its aftermath).

By the end of her reign in 1603, Elizabeth I had stabilized England and
laid the groundwork for its rise as a great power. She left a mixed
legacy: on one hand, Gloriana had become a legend in her own
lifetime – a symbol of national pride and unity. The date of her
accession (November 17) was celebrated as a holiday for 200 years
after. On the other hand, she left her successor (James I) a hefty debt
and an unresolved succession issue (she had no direct heir).
Nonetheless, her reign’s successes in religion, defence, and culture
far outweighed its problems. Elizabeth’s leadership style – balancing
firmness and flexibility – and her savvy handling of challenges
ensured that England emerged from the 16th century strong,
Protestant, and independent, setting the stage for the Stuart era to
follow.

Practice Questions (Elizabeth I’s Reign):

●​ Short Answer: What was the Elizabethan Religious Settlement

and why was it important for England’s stability?​

●​ Source-Based: Read the following quote from Elizabeth I: “I

would not open windows into men's souls.” How does this quote
reflect Elizabeth’s policy towards religion? What does it suggest
about how she handled the Catholic–Protestant divide?​

●​ Extended Response: “Elizabeth I overcame the challenges to

her rule through clever compromise and strong leadership.” To
what extent do you agree with this statement? In your answer,
discuss how Elizabeth dealt with religious tensions and political
threats (such as Mary, Queen of Scots and the Spanish threat).
Provide specific examples to support your argument.​

The Spanish Armada (1588)

Background: The Spanish Armada was one of the most famous
naval conflicts in English history. In 1588, King Philip II of Spain
launched a massive fleet with the goal of invading England,
overthrowing Queen Elizabeth I, and restoring England to Catholicism.
Tensions between Catholic Spain and Protestant England had been
building for years. Philip II had several motivations for this bold
invasion attempt:
●​ Religion: Spain was a staunchly Catholic empire, and Philip II
saw it as his duty to return England to the Catholic fold.
Elizabeth’s support of Protestant causes in Europe (and her
tolerance of Protestantism at home) angered him. In 1587,
Elizabeth executed Mary, Queen of Scots – a Catholic claimant
to England’s throne – which infuriated Catholic Europe and
personally offended Philip. With the Pope’s blessing, Philip cast
the Armada as a Catholic crusade against a heretic queen.​

●​ Politics and Dynastic Claims: Philip had a familial link to the

English crown – he was formerly married to Queen Mary I of
England (Elizabeth’s half-sister) and thus once King Consort of
England. Mary’s death ended his direct influence, but Philip still
believed he had a claim to England’s throne (the Pope even
supported naming Philip’s daughter Isabella as the Queen of
England). Overthrowing Elizabeth could place a Catholic
monarch (possibly himself or his nominee) on the English throne.​

●​ English Interference: England under Elizabeth had been

meddling in Spanish affairs. Notably, Elizabeth provided support
to the Dutch rebels in the Spanish Netherlands (modern
Belgium/Netherlands) who were fighting for independence from
Spain. In 1585, she signed the Treaty of Nonsuch, pledging
English money and troops to aid the Dutch against Spanish rule.
This directly pitted England against Spain. Philip viewed
Elizabeth’s intervention as an act of war.​

●​ Piracy and Treasure: English sailors like Sir Francis Drake,

John Hawkins, and others (sometimes called “sea dogs”) were
effectively pirates licensed by Elizabeth to raid Spanish ships
and colonies. They attacked Spanish treasure fleets returning
from the Americas, stealing gold and silver, which greatly
 provoked Philip. In one daring raid in 1587, Sir Francis Drake
led a surprise attack on the Spanish harbor of Cádiz, destroying
numerous ships and supplies intended for the Armada. Drake
bragged he had “singed the King of Spain’s beard,” and this
attack delayed the Armada’s launch by destroying barrels and
provisions. These constant English attacks on Spanish interests
enraged Philip and hurt Spain’s finances.​

●​ Strategic and Imperial Rivalry: England was emerging as a

rival naval power and beginning to establish its own overseas
ventures. Philip II, ruling the world’s most powerful empire at the
time (which included Spain, large parts of the Americas, and
territories in Europe), saw England as a growing threat that
needed to be subdued sooner rather than later.​

By 1588, Philip had assembled an enormous fleet – the “Invincible

Armada” as it was called by the Spanish (in Spanish: La Gran
Armada). About 130 ships carrying roughly 30,000 men (sailors and
soldiers) set sail from Spain, making it one of the largest fleets ever
seen. The plan was for the Armada to sail to the Netherlands, link up
with a large Spanish army stationed there under the Duke of Parma,
and then ferry that army across the English Channel to invade
England. It was a complex operation requiring precise coordination
between the fleet and the army.

Opposing Forces: England vs. Spain

The conflict can be understood by comparing the two sides:

●​ Spanish Forces: The Spanish Armada consisted of heavy, large

galleons and various support ships. They were formidable
floating fortresses, carrying many soldiers. Spanish ships were
designed to sail in tight crescent formation and, when engaged,
 to close with the enemy, board their ships, and defeat them in
hand-to-hand fighting. Spain’s strength lay in its experienced
tercios (infantry) and its vast resources as a wealthy empire.
However, there were weaknesses: the Spanish ships, though
strong, were slower and less maneuverable than English ships.
They also had fewer heavy long-range cannons. Philip’s
appointed commander was the Duke of Medina Sidonia, an
aristocrat with administrative talent but little naval experience.
(He replaced Spain’s best admiral, the Marquess of Santa Cruz,
who died just before the Armada sailed.) Medina Sidonia was
cautious and dutiful, but he faced difficulties commanding at sea.
Another challenge was communication – Medina Sidonia had to
somehow coordinate with Parma’s army in the Netherlands
across the sea, a daunting task without modern communications.
Additionally, because of Drake’s raid and other delays, some
provisions were scant and some barrels for food/water were of
poor quality, leading to spoilage during the long voyage.​

●​ English Forces: England’s defense relied on its navy and

coastal fortifications. Queen Elizabeth was the figurehead of the
resistance, boosting morale (as at Tilbury), but the naval
commanders were key. The English fleet was led by Lord
Charles Howard of Effingham (High Admiral) with seasoned
captains like Sir Francis Drake as his deputy, along with Sir
John Hawkins and Martin Frobisher. The English mustered about
"200 ships" in total, but many were smaller armed merchant
vessels; at any given time, around 100 English ships shadowed
or fought the Armada. English ships were generally smaller,
faster, and more maneuverable than Spanish galleons.
Crucially, the English had outfitted their ships with powerful
long-range cannons and culverins. Their strategy was not to
board Spanish ships, but to damage or sink them from afar with
 cannon fire. The English ships carried fewer soldiers but far
more gunners. They intended to use superior firepower and
agility: as one English tactic, they would maneuver to stay
upwind (to have speed advantage) and stand off at a distance,
bombarding the Spanish with cannon shot. This was a
relatively new naval warfare approach and played to English
strengths. Another English advantage was home turf – they
could resupply in English ports, and they had coastal beacons
and scouts to give early warning of the Armada’s approach (the
beacon system famously alerted England when the Armada was
sighted). English morale was high; they portrayed the fight as a
defence of the Protestant nation against foreign conquest,
adding patriotic zeal to their efforts.​

The Spanish fleet sailed from Lisbon (Portugal) and was supposed to
meet the Duke of Parma’s forces in the Spanish Netherlands. After
battles in the English Channel, the surviving Spanish ships were
forced to flee north around Scotland and Ireland to return home,
suffering terrible losses along the way.

The Course of the Armada Campaign

The Armada’s campaign in 1588 unfolded dramatically. After years of

preparation, the Spanish Armada finally set sail from Lisbon in May
1588. Almost immediately it hit bad weather; Atlantic storms forced the
fleet to take shelter and refit at the port of A Coruña in northern Spain.
This delayed the invasion. The Armada set out again in July.

The English got word of the Armada’s approach in late July 1588. On
July 29, 1588 (Gregorian calendar) – which was July 19 by the old
Julian calendar used in England at the time – the Armada was sighted
off the coast of Cornwall (southwest England). The beacon fires were
lit, and the English fleet, which had been waiting at Plymouth, raced
out to sea.

Despite a near-disaster (the English fleet was initially trapped leeward,

meaning downwind, which could have given the Spanish the
advantage), the English managed a clever maneuver to windward to
gain the weather gage (upwind position). This meant the English ships
could effectively choose when and how to engage.

Over the next week, a running battle in the English Channel ensued.
There were several skirmishes:

●​ Battle off Plymouth (July 31, 1588): The first encounter. Drake
and Howard attacked the rear of the Spanish formation. The
English cannons inflicted some damage at long range and
managed to capture or disable a few lagging Spanish ships, but
the main Spanish fleet held its defensive crescent shape.​

●​ Battle off Portland Bill (August 2): The Spanish tried to join
with a squadron from Flanders; the English again harassed
them, and a change in wind almost allowed the Spanish to gain
an advantage, but the nimble English ships escaped the attempt
at close combat.​

●​ Battle off the Isle of Wight (August 4): The English fleet,
reinforced with a few more ships, made a stronger attack.
Medina Sidonia attempted to anchor temporarily, hoping Parma’s
army might yet arrive, but was forced to keep moving. The
English fire damaged more ships, and one Spanish galleon (the
San Salvador) exploded (possibly earlier, due to accident). Still,
the Armada largely remained intact but could not land anywhere.​
Throughout these engagements, the English tactics frustrated the
Spaniards. The Spaniards fired their cannons too, but they were not
as well-drilled in naval gunnery. Many Spanish heavy cannons were
intended to be fired once as broadsides before boarding and thus
were not easily reloadable in the heat of battle. Spanish gun crews
were less trained for rapid fire at sea. In contrast, English crews could
fire more rounds and then sail out of range whenever Spain’s heavier
ships tried to close in.

By early August, the Armada reached the narrowest part of the

Channel near Calais, France. On August 6, 1588, Medina Sidonia
anchored the Armada off Calais to wait for word from the Duke of
Parma. This was risky: they were in an exposed position and, worse,
Parma’s army was delayed. In fact, Parma had been caught off guard
by the Armada’s arrival (communication was slow). His army needed
several days to get to the coast and board barges, and Dutch ships
(allies of England) were blockading some Flemish ports. The Armada
had no safe harbor at Calais, and time was not on their side.

At this critical moment, the English devised a fiery plan. Just after
midnight on August 7–8, the English set eight fire ships alight – old
vessels filled with pitch, tar, and explosives – and sent them drifting
with the wind and tide into the anchored Spanish fleet. In the
darkness, the sight of flaming ships approaching caused panic among
the Spanish. Fearing these fire ships (which had been used to
devastating effect in other naval battles), the Spanish ships hurriedly
cut their anchor cables and scattered out to sea to avoid catching fire.
The tight crescent formation of the Armada was broken apart.
Crucially, by cutting their anchors, many Spanish ships lost their
anchors entirely (they would later be unable to re-anchor securely
when needed).
The next morning, August 8, 1588, as the disorganized Spanish ships
drifted near Gravelines (off the coast of Flanders), the English fleet
attacked in force. The Battle of Gravelines was the decisive
engagement. With the Armada in confusion, the English closed to
closer range than before and unleashed repeated cannon volleys.
English guns blasted the Spanish ships at a deadly pace. Spanish
return fire was limited – many of their cannonballs flew over the lighter
English ships, and once the English were in close, the Spaniards
mostly had to rely on small guns and muskets, as their heavy cannons
could not be reloaded fast enough. Several Spanish ships were
pounded into wrecks. Notably, the great galleon San Lorenzo was
heavily damaged and run aground, others were sunk or set ablaze.
Spanish casualties mounted, and their morale plummeted. The
English fleet took some hits as well, but none of their ships were lost
in this battle. By the end of the day, the Spanish Armada was
effectively defeated as a fighting force – it could no longer maintain an
offensive formation.

As the winds shifted to the north and the English began to run low on
ammunition, Lord Howard called off the close pursuit. The surviving
Spanish ships regrouped and found that the winds were now driving
them into the North Sea, away from the English Channel. Philip’s
invasion plan was in tatters – the Armada could not reach or escort
Parma’s army anymore. Instead, the battered fleet was forced to flee
northward around the coasts of Scotland and Ireland to attempt a
return to Spain.

What followed was a horrific ordeal for the Spaniards. As the Armada
sailed around the rough western coasts of the British Isles, they
encountered violent storms (the notorious autumn gales of the North
Atlantic). Many Spanish ships, lacking anchors and already damaged
from battle, could not find safe harbor and were driven onto the rocky
shores of Scotland or Ireland. Dozens of ships wrecked. Local
inhabitants in Ireland reportedly killed some shipwrecked Spanish
survivors (seeing them as invaders), while others died of hunger and
disease as they struggled to return home. Of the approximately 130
ships that had set out, only about 60 limped back to Spain by the
end of 1588. Thousands of Spanish sailors and soldiers perished – an
estimated 15,000 or more lost their lives, whether by battle, drowning,
starvation, or disease. In contrast, English losses in battle were very
low; perhaps 100 men killed in combat. However, several thousand
English sailors died later in 1588 from diseases contracted during the
long period of naval service (conditions on ships were harsh). Still, the
English victory was overwhelming – not a single Spanish soldier
set foot in England, and the “Invincible” Armada had been utterly
defeated.

Painting: The defeat of the Spanish Armada, 1588. This later artwork
dramatizes the battle, showing English fire ships (left) spreading
chaos among the Spanish fleet and fierce fighting at sea. The English
ships (one flag bearing St. George’s cross is visible at right)
bombarded the larger Spanish galleons, aided by gale-force winds
that drove the Spanish into disarray.

Why Did the Armada Fail?

The failure of the Spanish Armada was caused by a combination of

English strengths and Spanish weaknesses – and a healthy dose of
bad luck for the Spanish (and good luck for the English). Key reasons
include:

●​ Superior English Tactics and Ships: The English navy’s

strategy of using long-range heavy cannon from fast,
maneuverable ships proved very effective. By keeping their
distance in the early battles, the English whittled down the
Armada without exposing themselves to Spain’s preferred
boarding tactics. Once the Armada was scattered at Calais, the
 English moved in and used their firepower to devastating effect.
English warships like the Ark Royal and Drake’s Revenge could
out-sail and out-shoot the Spanish galleons. The English also
had experienced captains and crews who had fought at sea
often (many cut their teeth in piracy or smaller engagements).
They knew the Channel waters well. In contrast, the Spanish
crews, while brave, were not used to the English hit-and-run
naval style.​

●​ Spanish Plan Flaws: Philip’s invasion plan was overly ambitious

and had critical weaknesses. It required perfect coordination
between the fleet and Parma’s army, which was nearly
impossible given communication delays and the fact that Dutch
rebel ships controlled shallow waters off Flanders. The Armada
had no deep-water port to shelter in while waiting for Parma.
When it had to anchor off Calais, it became vulnerable.
Additionally, Medina Sidonia was aware of these issues and
even wrote to Philip expressing concerns before the Armada
sailed. The design of Spanish ships also put them at a
disadvantage in a long-range gunnery duel – they were built for
carrying troops and for close combat. Once the English refused
to fight on those terms, the Spanish were handicapped.​

●​ Logistics and Provisioning: The lengthy delays (partly due to

Drake’s raid, partly weather) meant that Spanish provisions
deteriorated. Food and water on the Armada were in poor
condition; many sailors were weakened by illness or malnutrition
by the time they reached English waters. After the fire ship
incident, Spanish ships had to cut their anchors and couldn’t
easily stop for fresh water. This exacerbated their woes during
the long trip around Scotland/Ireland, contributing to deaths from
 thirst and disease.​

●​ Leadership and Morale: The English leadership was generally

effective – Howard was prudent and Drake aggressive, a good
balance. Spanish leadership was less coordinated. Medina
Sidonia did his best but was not a naval genius; he was
essentially carrying out a plan handed to him, whereas English
leaders could adapt on the fly. Also, Queen Elizabeth’s presence
and support boosted English morale. She visited troops and
made sure the navy was provisioned (though English sailors did
suffer hardship, they knew they protected their homeland).
Spanish morale suffered especially after the failed rendezvous
with Parma and the fire ship attack, as fear and confusion set in.​

●​ Weather (“Protestant Wind”): Perhaps the most famous factor

– the weather. After the Battle of Gravelines, strong
northwesterly gales blew the Spanish northwards. Later, brutal
storms in the North Atlantic wrecked many fleeing ships. The
English attributed these winds to divine providence, thanking
what they called the “Protestant Wind” for saving England. It’s
true that weather dealt the final blows to the Armada. If the seas
had been calmer, more Spanish ships might have made it home
(or even attempted to regroup). Nature clearly favored the
English that season.​

In summary, the Armada failed because the Spanish were

outmaneuvered at sea, undone by logistical issues and weather, and
unable to execute their invasion plan. The English, fighting on home
waters with innovative tactics, made the most of every opportunity to
weaken their enemy.

Consequences and Significance of the Armada’s Defeat

The defeat of the Spanish Armada had wide-ranging consequences
for both England and Spain, as well as for the balance of power in
Europe.

For England and Queen Elizabeth I:

●​ The victory was a huge propaganda triumph. It bolstered

national pride and secured Elizabeth’s throne. The English saw
the outcome as proof that God favored Protestant England.
Celebrations broke out across the country. Elizabeth herself, in a
magnificent victory parade, was exalted by her subjects. Poets
and writers memorialized the event, and it became a cornerstone
of England’s developing national identity. The notion of England
as a divine bulwark against Catholic tyranny took root.​

●​ Militarily, the immediate threat of invasion was removed. England

did remain at war with Spain on and off until 1604, but never
again did the Spanish come so close to England’s shores.
English naval confidence grew. Although Spain’s naval power
was not completely broken, England learned that a strong navy
was its best defense. Over the next decades, England (and later
Britain) would continue to build naval strength, foreshadowing its
future as a great naval power.​

●​ Psychologically, the people of England felt a new sense of

security and destiny. This win is often cited as the moment
England “stood up” as a major power. It also gave breathing
room for Elizabeth to focus on other matters without the looming
specter of Spanish invasion. However, it’s worth noting that the
war did drag on – Elizabeth sent futile expeditions to Portugal
(1589) and continued to support France and the Dutch against
Spain. These were costly and not very successful. Still, none of
those later conflicts carried the existential threat that the Armada
 did.​

For Spain and King Philip II:

●​ The defeat was a major blow to Spanish prestige. Spain had

been the superpower of the age, and the Armada’s failure
shattered the aura of invincibility that Spain enjoyed. Philip II
himself, ever the devout man, reportedly responded to news of
the defeat by saying, “I sent the Armada against men, not God’s
winds.” Publicly, Spain downplayed the loss as the will of God.
But there was no hiding that this massive and expensive
campaign had failed disastrously.​

●​ Financially, the defeat was crippling. Building and equipping the

Armada cost Spain a fortune, and its loss (and the loss of
thousands of experienced seamen) weakened the Spanish navy.
Spain had to rebuild its naval forces at great cost. Indeed, some
historians mark 1588 as the beginning of the gradual decline of
the Spanish Empire. While Spain remained powerful for decades
after, it faced mounting economic troubles (partly due to the
debts of war and lost ships) and military overstretch.​

●​ Strategically, Spain had to abandon the idea of conquering

England. Philip II did launch smaller armadas in the 1590s
(1596, 1597) to harass England or Ireland, but these too were
scattered by storms or achieved little. The initiative in the war
shifted slightly toward England and its allies. Spain became more
defensive, focusing on holding its existing territories. Importantly,
the failure of the Armada also ensured the survival of the Dutch
Revolt – with England’s continued aid, the northern Netherlands
would eventually win independence as the Dutch Republic.​
 ●​ The balance of power in Europe subtly began to change. Though
not immediately a superpower, England’s star was on the rise.
Protestant countries drew inspiration; for instance, the victory
gave hope to Protestant factions in France and the Netherlands.
Catholic unity under Spain suffered a blow.​

In the long term, the Armada’s defeat paved the way for England (and
later Britain) to expand its naval reach. In the 17th century, English
and later British navies would challenge Spanish and other navies
across the world, leading to colonization efforts in North America and
elsewhere, something that might have been stifled had the Armada
succeeded. The event also ingrained in English culture a notion that
divine providence or fate protected their island – an idea that would
resurface in later historical crises (even as late as World War II’s
“Dunkirk” spirit, one hears echoes of 1588).

In conclusion, the Spanish Armada of 1588 was a turning point: it

saved England from invasion, cemented Elizabeth I’s legacy, and
marked the beginning of the end of Spain’s dominance. It
demonstrated the effectiveness of new naval warfare tactics and the
importance of naval power for England. For Year 8 students, the
Armada story is not just about ships and battles, but about how close
England came to being conquered and how one event can
dramatically change a country’s fortunes.

Practice Questions (Spanish Armada):

●​ Short Answer: Give two reasons why King Philip II launched

the Spanish Armada against England.​

●​ Source-Based: Study a map of the Spanish Armada’s route

(for example, the one above). What geographical challenges did
the Spanish fleet face during its attempt to invade England?
 (Hint: consider the distances involved and the route around
Scotland/Ireland.) How did the English use their geographic
position to their advantage?​

●​ Extended Response: “The defeat of the Spanish Armada was

due more to Spanish mistakes than to English brilliance.” How
far do you agree? Write an essay explaining why the Armada
failed, considering factors such as leadership, tactics, planning,
and weather. Be sure to discuss both the English strengths and
the Spanish weaknesses in your answer.​

The English Civil War (1642–1651)

Background: The English Civil War was a conflict that tore apart
England (and Wales, with fighting also in Scotland and Ireland) in the
mid-17th century. It was not a single continuous war but actually a
series of wars and political machinations, typically divided into the
First (1642–1646) and Second (1648) Civil Wars (and sometimes a
Third, 1651). At the heart of the conflict was a power struggle between
King Charles I and Parliament. The war fundamentally was about
who should hold the authority to govern England – the King (with his
belief in divine right monarchy) or Parliament (representing the
authority of law and the will of the gentry and people). However, many
factors caused the war: disputes over money and taxes, religious
disagreements, and issues of governance and law. The Civil War led
to the unprecedented trial and execution of King Charles I in 1649,
the temporary abolition of the monarchy, and the rise of Oliver
Cromwell as a de facto ruler. It’s one of the most important events in
British history because it set the stage for the kind of constitutional
monarchy and democratic government that Britain has today.
Causes of the Civil War: Politics, Money, and Religion

Political Power and the Divine Right of Kings: King Charles I, who
came to the throne in 1625, believed strongly in the “Divine Right of
Kings” – the idea that monarchs are chosen by God and thus have
absolute authority. He felt he should govern without much interference
from Parliament. Parliament (comprised of nobles and elected gentry),
on the other hand, expected to have a say in important matters,
especially taxation and national policy. Tension between Charles and
Parliament grew from the start of his reign. Between 1625 and 1629,
Charles quarreled with Parliament over funds (they were reluctant to
grant him taxes for his policies) and over the influence of his advisors.
In 1629, Charles decided to dissolve Parliament and rule alone,
initiating a period known as the Personal Rule (1629–1640) – his
critics called it the “Eleven Years’ Tyranny.” During this time, Charles
governed without calling Parliament at all. To finance his government
without Parliament’s approval, he resorted to dubious methods:

●​ He revived old, forgotten laws and fees to raise money (for

example, fines for not attending his coronation, or enforcing
medieval land taxes).​

●​ Most infamously, he expanded the collection of Ship Money.

Traditionally, Ship Money was a tax levied in coastal towns in
wartime to fund the navy. Charles, however, demanded Ship
Money from the entire country during peacetime, every year
– essentially an unauthorized national tax. This caused
widespread anger, especially because there was no war at the
time and people saw it as illegal without Parliament’s consent.
One MP, John Hampden, famously refused to pay Ship Money
and was tried in court (he lost his case, but he became a symbol
of resistance).​
 ●​ Charles also sold noble titles and monopolies to rich friends to
raise cash. These practices were seen as corrupt.​

Many members of the gentry and merchant class were outraged by

Charles’s autocratic actions. They believed the King was overstepping
his authority and ignoring the traditional role of Parliament. The feeling
was that Charles was acting like an absolute monarch, more in the
style of France or Spain, rather than an English king who was
expected to rule “in Parliament.” This political dispute laid a foundation
for conflict: those who supported the King’s authority (the Royalists)
versus those who supported Parliament’s rights (Parliamentarians).

Religion and Ideology: Religion was another major source of friction.

Charles I had married a French Catholic princess, Queen Henrietta
Maria, which made Protestant England suspicious. Furthermore,
Charles favored a high Anglican form of worship, with elaborate
ceremonies. His chosen Archbishop of Canterbury, William Laud,
introduced reforms to the Church of England that seemed “too
Catholic” to many Protestants (for example, beautifying churches,
emphasizing ritual, and cracking down on Puritans). English Puritans
(strict Protestants) were alarmed, believing Charles and Laud were
secretly trying to tilt England back toward Catholicism. Charles’s
government even persecuted outspoken Puritans – some had their
ears cut off or were imprisoned for pamphlets attacking the Church’s
policies.

The situation was even worse in Scotland. Scotland was a separate

kingdom but ruled by Charles (he was King of Scotland too). The
Scots were mostly Presbyterian (a form of Protestantism with simple
worship and church governance by elders). In 1637, Charles and Laud
tried to impose a new Anglican prayer book on the Scottish Church.
The Scots were furious; riots broke out and the Scots formed an
armed resistance, signing the National Covenant to defend their
religion. This led to the Bishops’ Wars (1639–1640) – essentially,
Charles’s attempt to force religious changes in Scotland met with
armed rebellion. The Scots defeated Charles’s forces in these brief
wars, and Charles found himself in a serious bind: he needed money
to pay the Scottish a settlement and to raise a better army.

The Short and Long Parliament: Bankrupt and desperate after the
Bishops’ Wars, Charles had no choice but to recall Parliament in
1640 to ask for funds. What came was called the Short Parliament
(because it lasted only 3 weeks in April 1640). This Parliament refused
to grant Charles money unless he addressed their grievances about
his Personal Rule; Charles dissolved it in anger. The Scots invaded
northern England, however, and seized Northumberland. Defeated
and more desperate, Charles summoned another Parliament in
November 1640 – this one became known as the Long Parliament
because it would sit (on and off) for many years.

The Long Parliament (led by figures like John Pym and Oliver
Cromwell, who was a relatively unknown MP at the start) took the
opportunity to curb the King’s powers. They immediately impeached
and executed two of Charles’s most hated ministers: Thomas
Wentworth, Earl of Strafford (his chief advisor, seen as an architect
of the “tyranny”) and Archbishop Laud. They also passed laws to
ensure Parliament could not be dissolved without its own consent and
that Ship Money was illegal. Tensions in London ran high; crowds of
Londoners sided with Parliament. Charles, feeling his authority
crumble, made a fateful move in January 1642: he barged into the
House of Commons with armed guards to arrest five leading MPs
on charges of treason. This was a shocking violation of parliamentary
privilege. The attempt failed – the five members had been tipped off
and fled. Charles’s dramatic action backfired terribly: it turned many in
Parliament against him completely, and the people of London were
outraged. As mobs surged and the situation grew dangerous, Charles
fled London with his family, heading north to raise supporters. Civil
war was becoming inevitable.

Economic Factors: Underlying the political and religious issues were

economic ones. Charles’s disputes with Parliament were often about
money – taxes, customs duties, and the cost of wars. England wasn’t
a poor country, but Charles’s methods of collecting revenue alienated
the merchant class and landed gentry, who were the backbone of the
economy and of Parliament. Trade suffered under Charles’s arbitrary
rules and the uncertainty of his Personal Rule. When war loomed,
both sides – King and Parliament – would draw support in part based
on economic grievances. Many merchants and city people favored
Parliament, seeing Charles’s regime as bad for business (for example,
monopolies raised prices, arbitrary taxes cut into profits). On the other
hand, some regions, especially poorer, rural areas or areas where the
local lord was Royalist, stuck with the King, worried that a victorious
Parliament might impose Puritan moral laws or disrupt traditional land
rights.

Summary of Causes: By mid-1642, England was polarized. Key

causes of the Civil War can be summarized as:

1.​Absolute vs. Parliamentary Rule: Charles I’s attempt to govern

without Parliament and the assertion of divine right clashed with
Parliament’s demand for a say in government and protection of
laws.​

2.​Religious Conflicts: Fear of Charles’s “crypto-Catholic” policies

and his imposition of Anglican practices (especially in Scotland)
angered Puritans and Presbyterians. Religion deepened distrust
on both sides.​
 3.​Financial Strain and Taxation: Charles’s heavy-handed
fundraising (Ship Money, fines, etc.) was seen as illegal and
oppressive. Economic discontent made many willing to resist the
King.​

4.​Immediate Triggers: The Bishops’ Wars and the need for

money forced Charles to call Parliament, which then took the
chance to strip his powers. The attempted arrest of the Five
Members (Jan 1642) was the final straw for many – convincing
them the King would use force against his own people.​

In August 1642, matters reached a point of no return. Charles, having

gathered a small army of loyal nobles and soldiers in the north, raised
the royal standard in Nottingham on 22 August 1642 – effectively
declaring war on Parliament. The country began to split into two
armed camps: the King’s supporters (known as Royalists or
Cavaliers) and Parliament’s supporters (known as Parliamentarians
or Roundheads).

The Two Sides: Cavaliers vs. Roundheads

When the Civil War began, people didn’t neatly fall into “king” or
“parliament” at first; many tried to stay neutral. But gradually, lines
were drawn:

●​ Royalists (Cavaliers): These were supporters of King Charles.

They included most of the traditional nobility and landowners
in the rural north and west of England. Many conservative
Anglicans and practically all Catholics sided with the King, as
they feared a Parliament dominated by Puritans would persecute
them. They got the nickname “Cavaliers” (from the Spanish word
caballero, meaning horseman or knight) because of their flashy
clothing and the fact many were mounted nobles. Cavaliers were
 often depicted as having long, flowing hair and elegant attire.
They believed in the king’s cause of order, hierarchy, and the
traditional rights of the Crown. A Cavalier might say, “The king is
chosen by God – he has a divine right to rule”. Notable Royalist
commanders included Prince Rupert of the Rhine (Charles’s
nephew, a bold cavalry leader) and Lord Newcastle in the north.​

●​ Parliamentarians (Roundheads): On Parliament’s side were

many Puritans, merchants, and smaller landowners,
especially in the urbanized and economically developed south
and east, including London. They were called “Roundheads”
initially as an insult, because some of the Puritan soldiers wore
their hair cropped short (unlike the long-haired Cavaliers). The
Roundheads generally fought to uphold the rights of Parliament
and to impose limits on the King’s power. They tended to favor
more Puritan religious views (some wanted to further reform the
Church, eliminate bishops, etc.). A Parliamentarian might argue,
“One man cannot govern an entire nation alone – the king must
govern with Parliament’s consent, and serve the law”. Key
Parliamentarian leaders included John Pym (political leader
early on), Sir Thomas Fairfax (general), and Oliver Cromwell,
who rose to prominence during the war.​

It’s important to note not everyone chose a side based purely on high
principles. Some were influenced by local loyalties (tenants might side
with whatever their local lord did), or by fear and necessity. In fact,
ordinary people rarely chose sides on ideological grounds. Many were
conscripted or persuaded to join by local gentry. As one depiction in a
source shows: a simple farmer might fight for the King because his
landlord told him God commands loyalty to the king, whereas a
townsman might side with Parliament because he resents the king’s
taxes that hurt his business. Families were sometimes split. Regions
like the Midlands saw neighbors on opposite sides.

Comparing the armies: At first, both Royalists and Parliamentarians

raised fairly rag-tag armies. There was no standing army in England,
so each side gathered militia, mercenaries, and enthusiastic
volunteers.

●​ The Royalist army had an edge in experienced officers (many

noblemen had military experience or were trained in dueling and
riding). They also had excellent cavalry early on, led by Prince
Rupert, which won many early encounters. However, the
Royalists struggled with resources: they controlled fewer rich
areas, and as war went on, they had trouble arming and paying
their troops.​

●​ The Parliamentary army had control of London – which was a

huge advantage. London’s wealth and workshops could supply
their forces. Parliament also controlled the navy (most of the fleet
stayed loyal to Parliament), which meant they could secure
imports of arms and block ports to the King. Parliament allied
with the Scots in 1643, gaining a whole Scottish army’s help in
exchange for promising to implement a Presbyterian church
system in England. This alliance was crucial in tipping the
balance. Parliament’s soldiers included the London Trained
Bands (city militia who fought bravely to defend the capital) and
various regional militias.​

Roundheads vs. Cavaliers in mindset:

●​ Cavaliers often emphasized loyalty, honor, and chivalry – their

motto could be “Long live the King!” They tended to be more
flashy in dress and were associated with the upper class and
 countryside.​

●​ Roundheads emphasized duty, rights, and godliness – some

were very religiously zealous (like the Puritan “Ironsides” cavalry
later led by Cromwell). They were associated with sternness,
simplicity, and the middle class or urban folk. They might pray
and sing psalms before battle, believing God was on their side.​

Key Events and Battles of the War

The Civil War saw numerous battles and sieges across England (and
Wales). Here are some of the major events and turning points:

●​ Battle of Edgehill (October 1642): This was the first major

pitched battle, in Warwickshire. King Charles’s army met the
Parliamentary army led by the Earl of Essex. The battle was
bloody and indecisive – by nightfall, neither side had a clear
victory. Edgehill proved that the war would not be won in one
quick stroke; it showed both sides that the other would fight hard.
After Edgehill, the Royalists marched toward London, but were
slowed enough that London’s defenders could organize. Charles
never managed to capture London, which remained in
Parliament’s hands – a strategic failure for the King early on.​

●​ Campaigns of 1643: The Royalists won several victories in

1643 (e.g., at Adwalton Moor in the north, and at Roundway
Down in the southwest). They seemed close to encircling
London. However, Parliament scored a significant success in late
1643 by securing an alliance with Scotland. In early 1644, a
Scottish Covenanter army of 20,000 crossed into England to
fight the King’s forces. This added pressure on the Royalists,
especially in the north.​
●​ Battle of Marston Moor (July 1644): Fought near York,
Marston Moor was one of the largest battles of the Civil War
(around 45,000 troops combined). The Parliamentarians (with
their Scottish allies) under the command of Lord Fairfax and with
Oliver Cromwell leading the cavalry, faced Prince Rupert’s
Royalist army. The outcome was a decisive Parliamentarian
victory – the Royalist army in the north was effectively
destroyed. Marston Moor gave Parliament control of the north of
England. Cromwell’s cavalry, nicknamed the “Ironsides,”
distinguished themselves by their discipline and ferocity, routing
the Royalist horsemen. This battle cemented Cromwell’s
reputation as a military leader and showed the value of
well-trained, ideologically driven troops (many of Cromwell’s
cavalry were Puritans who believed they fought for God’s cause).​

●​ Formation of the New Model Army (1645): By late 1644, some

in Parliament were frustrated that the war wasn’t over. Under
Cromwell and Sir Thomas Fairfax’s influence, Parliament created
the New Model Army – a centralized, professional army, rather
than regional militia forces. Soldiers in the New Model Army
were regularly paid (when funds allowed), properly equipped,
and promoted on merit rather than social status. They were also
imbued with Puritan religious fervor. This red-uniformed army
became a formidable fighting force. Oliver Cromwell was
second-in-command of the cavalry; Sir Thomas Fairfax was the
Commander-in-Chief.​

●​ Battle of Naseby (14 June 1645): This was the pivotal battle of
the first Civil War. The New Model Army (about 14,000 strong)
clashed with King Charles’s main army (around 10,000) at
Naseby in Northamptonshire. The result was a crushing
Parliamentarian victory. The New Model Army outmaneuvered
 and overwhelmed the Royalists. Prince Rupert’s cavalry initially
drove back part of the New Model’s horse, but Cromwell’s wing
of cavalry smashed the Royalist cavalry on the other flank and
then attacked the infantry. The disciplined New Model infantry
(many of them veterans from earlier battles) broke the Royalist
foot soldiers. By the end, the Royalist army was annihilated –
they lost thousands killed or captured. Even more damaging, the
Parliamentarians seized the King’s baggage train, including his
private letters. These letters, when published, showed Charles
was seeking foreign Catholic aid (Irish Catholic troops and help
from France), which undercut his reputation and rallied more
support to Parliament. Naseby effectively decided the war –
after this, Charles no longer had a big field army in England.​

●​ End of the First Civil War (1646): After Naseby, the New Model
Army mopped up remaining Royalist resistance. They took
Oxford (the King’s wartime capital) and other strongholds. King
Charles I, realizing he had lost, surrendered in 1646 – but
notably, he surrendered not to Parliament but to the Scottish
army (in the hope he’d get better terms from the Scots). The
Scots, after some months, handed Charles over to the English
Parliament (after being paid a sum of money, often cynically
called the “sale” of the King). Thus in 1646 the first phase of the
war ended with Parliament victorious and King Charles a
prisoner.​

However, peace was not straightforward. There were deep divisions

between factions in the Parliamentarian camp about what to do next –
how to settle the nation, what to do with the King, and the future of the
army and religion:
 ●​ Some, known as Presbyterians (mostly in Parliament and of a
more moderate bent), wanted to make a deal with Charles – a
constitutional settlement where Charles would agree to limit his
power and establish a Presbyterian state church (to satisfy the
Scots).​

●​ Others, known as Independents (many in the New Model Army

and more radical MPs like Cromwell), were more distrustful of
the King and open to greater religious freedom for Protestant
sects (like Baptists, Quakers, etc.). They also wanted back pay
for the army and more say in government reforms.​

Second Civil War (1648): Charles, during captivity, secretly

negotiated with various parties. In 1648, he managed to encourage
uprisings by Royalist sympathizers in England and made a deal with
the Scots (despite earlier fighting them, he promised them a
Presbyterian church in England for 3 years in exchange for military
help). This led to the Second Civil War: pro-Charles revolts flared up in
Kent, Wales, and elsewhere, and a Scottish Engager army invaded
England to restore Charles. But the New Model Army, now led by
Fairfax and Cromwell, reacted swiftly. They crushed the uprisings
(Cromwell defeated a rebellion in Wales and then a Scottish-led army
at the Battle of Preston in August 1648). The Second Civil War was
over within months, and it ended in Parliament’s total victory once
again. Importantly, this convinced Cromwell and the army leaders that
Charles I could no longer be trusted at all – he had caused a
second bloodshed after being defeated, proving to them that as long
as he lived, he’d incite conflicts. From this point, the army (which was
very influential and politicized) pushed for a final resolution of the
“Charles problem.”

Trial and Execution of Charles I (1649)

After the Second Civil War, there was a confrontation between the
Army and Parliament. The Army, led by officers like Cromwell and
Colonel Thomas Pride, decided to remove those in Parliament who
still favored negotiating with the King. In December 1648, soldiers
carried out “Pride’s Purge,” barring or arresting many moderate MPs.
This left a “Rump Parliament” of radical or army-approved MPs in
charge in Westminster.

This Rump Parliament put King Charles I on trial for treason – a

monumental and shocking decision, since never before had a reigning
English monarch been tried and executed by his own subjects.
Charles was charged with waging war against his own people. He
refused to recognize the court’s authority (after all, how could subjects
judge their king?), but the trial went ahead. The outcome was a
foregone conclusion given that the army and its allies drove this
process: Charles I was found guilty. He was sentenced to death as
a “tyrant, traitor, murderer, and public enemy.”

On a cold Tuesday, 30 January 1649, King Charles I was executed

outside the Banqueting House at Whitehall in London. He was
beheaded before a crowd of spectators. According to eyewitness
accounts, there was an audible groan from the crowd as the axe fell –
many could hardly believe they had actually killed the King. People in
the crowd dipped handkerchiefs in his blood, perhaps as grisly
souvenirs or out of superstition that a king’s blood had healing powers.
The execution of Charles shocked Europe and England. For some,
Charles died a martyr (especially for royalists and moderate subjects
who never wanted it to go this far). For others, it was a grim but
necessary act to ensure liberty. In any case, it was unprecedented –
never before had an English king been legally tried and executed by
his own government. The event “changed how the country was run”: it
abolished the monarchy (and the House of Lords) and declared
England a Commonwealth, essentially a republic.
After Charles’s execution, England (along with Wales, later Ireland
and Scotland by conquest) became a republic called the
Commonwealth (1649–1653). The Rump Parliament held power,
theoretically, but real power was increasingly in the hands of the army
and its Council of Officers.

Oliver Cromwell and the Commonwealth/Protectorate

With the King gone, Oliver Cromwell rose to prominence as the

leading figure in the new republic. Cromwell had been a country
gentleman turned military commander; his success in the war and his
fervent Puritan faith earned him great influence. During the
Commonwealth, he served on the Council of State and was
essentially the commander of the army.

First, Cromwell had to deal with threats:

●​ Ireland (1649–1650): Charles I’s execution was not recognized

in Ireland. Ireland was largely Royalist and Catholic at this time,
and they crowned Charles’s son (also named Charles) as King
Charles II. Cromwell led an army to Ireland in 1649 to subdue
Royalist forces there. This campaign was brutal – Cromwell, a
convinced Puritan, saw Irish Catholic Royalists as both religious
and political threats. His siege of Drogheda and Wexford in
1649 led to massacres of defenders and some civilians, an act
that remains controversial and infamous in Irish history. The
campaign crushed organized resistance, though guerrilla warfare
continued. By 1652, Ireland was under Commonwealth control,
but at a horrific cost of lives and suffering. Cromwell’s reputation
in Ireland is extremely negative due to these actions.​

●​ Scotland (1650–1651): The Scots had crowned Charles II as

well, and he led a Scottish army into England in 1651, aiming to
restore the monarchy. Cromwell went north and defeated the
 Scots at the Battle of Dunbar (1650) and later decisively at
Worcester (1651) – Worcester is sometimes called the final
battle of the Civil Wars, where Cromwell routed Charles II’s
forces. Charles II himself narrowly escaped capture and fled into
exile in France. With this, Cromwell had essentially conquered
Scotland and Ireland, bringing the three kingdoms under
Commonwealth rule (albeit by force).​

By 1652, Cromwell and the New Model Army had eliminated internal
armed opposition. However, the Rump Parliament was slow to
implement reforms the army wanted (like broader religious freedom or
new elections). Frustration grew. In 1653, Cromwell eventually
dissolved the Rump Parliament by force – he marched in and told
the members “You have sat too long for any good you have been
doing... In the name of God, go!” This iconic moment underscored that
ultimately the army, and Cromwell in particular, held power.

Later in 1653, a new constitution (the Instrument of Government)

was introduced, and Oliver Cromwell was named Lord Protector of a
united Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland. This
essentially made Cromwell a dictator (or monarch in all but name)
– he ruled England from 1653 until his death in 1658 as Lord
Protector. This period is known as The Protectorate. Under
Cromwell:

●​ He tried to govern with a written constitution and a Lord Protector

in place of a King, along with a council and later parliaments. In
reality, Cromwell had the final say, especially backed by the
army. It was a “quasi-dictatorship”.​

●​ Religious policy: Cromwell was a Puritan but relatively tolerant

by the standards of the age. He enforced Puritan moral laws
 (banning theatres, closing alehouses on Sundays, cracking down
on gambling and drunkenness). Yet, he also allowed more
freedom for different Protestant sects (Independents, Baptists,
etc.) to worship than before. Notably, Cromwell allowed Jews to
return to England after 350 years of banishment (Jews had been
expelled in 1290; Cromwell permitted them to resettle in the
1650s). However, Catholics were still suppressed, especially in
Ireland.​

●​ Foreign policy: Under Cromwell, the Commonwealth built up

the navy and fought a naval war with the Dutch (the First
Anglo-Dutch War 1652–54) which ended favorably for England,
asserting its growing sea power. Later, the Commonwealth also
waged war on Spain (allying with France), seizing Jamaica in
1655. So ironically, even as a republic, England was becoming a
stronger international force.​

●​ Domestic issues: The Protectorate was stable in some ways –

it kept order and continued many of the administrative structures.
But it was essentially military rule. Some in England were tired of
the strict Puritan rules, and royalists still existed quietly hoping
for the monarchy’s return. When Cromwell died of natural causes
in 1658, his son Richard Cromwell succeeded him as Lord
Protector, but Richard lacked authority over the army and
resigned within months. Chaos threatened as different factions
jostled for power.​

By 1659–1660, it became clear that the republican experiment was

faltering. The army was divided, the people were weary of military
rule, and there was economic trouble. General George Monck, a key
army commander in Scotland, marched to London essentially to
restore order. Monck opened negotiations with the exiled Charles
Stuart (Charles I’s son). In 1660, Parliament (having been
reconstituted) invited Charles II to return as king in what’s known as
the Restoration. Charles II was crowned, and the monarchy was
restored after 11 years of republic.

However, the legacy of the Civil War lived on. While Charles II’s reign
in 1660 began anew the era of kings, never again would an English
monarch rule with absolute power. The idea that the king could be
held accountable (even executed) set a precedent. The importance of
Parliament was affirmed – the Restoration settlement acknowledged
that Charles II could not punish those who fought his father (general
amnesty except for regicides) and that he would work with Parliament.
Later, in 1688, another revolution (the Glorious Revolution) would
further solidify parliamentary power over the crown, a direct
descendant of principles fought over in the Civil War.

Consequences of the Civil War:

●​ An estimated 180,000–200,000 people died in England from

combat, disease, and starvation due to the war (around 3-4% of
the population – a huge proportion) – making it, per capita, one
of the deadliest conflicts in British history.​

●​ The wars resulted in constitutional change: while there was a

return to monarchy, the absolute monarchy was checked. The
beheading of Charles I sent the message that kings could not
ignore the law or govern against the will of the people
(represented by Parliament).​

●​ The social impact was significant too. The war disrupted

communities, and the lack of a king for over a decade radically
shifted perspectives. Radical political ideas spread during the
war and Commonwealth (groups like the Levellers in the army
 argued for expanded voting rights and equality; the Diggers
even tried communal living). Though these movements were
suppressed, they planted early seeds of democracy and social
justice debates in England.​

●​ The military impact: The New Model Army’s success

professionalized England’s military. Even after the war, fear of
standing armies remained (as Cromwell’s rule showed a
standing army can enable military dictatorship). This influenced
Britain’s future approach to maintaining only limited standing
forces and asserting civilian control.​

●​ For the monarchy, the restoration under Charles II came with an

understanding that some who fought in the war (especially
Cromwell) would be posthumously punished – Cromwell’s
corpse was dug up in 1661 and symbolically executed. But most
common soldiers on both sides went home. Over time, Royalists
and Parliamentarians had to live together again and reconcile.​

In short, the English Civil War was a clash over how England would be
governed and what role religion would play in that governance. It
resolved immediate questions (no, the king cannot govern without
Parliament; yes, Parliament has a say, and extreme absolutism is off
the table) but also raised new ones (like how much power should the
Army have, what kind of church should England have, etc.). It would
take further decades and another ousting of a king in 1688 to finally
settle that England would be a constitutional monarchy under
Parliament’s supremacy.

Practice Questions (English Civil War):

●​ Short Answer: Identify one political cause and one religious
cause of the English Civil War. (For example, a political cause
might be Charles I’s use of Ship Money, and a religious cause
might be his policy in Scotland with the prayer book.)​

●​ Source-Based: Imagine you have two primary sources: (A) a

1640 pamphlet by a Puritan complaining that “No king of
England should marry a foreign Catholic” and that “the King is
there to serve his country – not the other way around!”; (B) a
letter from a Royalist squire saying “The King was appointed by
God and it is our duty to obey him.” How do these viewpoints
illustrate the reasons people took different sides in the Civil War?
What biases do you detect in each source?​

●​ Extended Response: “Charles I was to blame for the Civil War.”

How far do you agree with this statement? In your answer,
discuss Charles I’s actions and the role of Parliament and other
factors in causing the war. Be sure to include religious and
financial issues in your analysis.​

●​ Extended Response: Was Oliver Cromwell a hero or a villain in

the story of the Civil War and its aftermath? Write an argument
considering Cromwell’s role in the war, the execution of the
King, and his rule as Lord Protector. Use evidence of his
contributions and his controversial actions (such as in Ireland) to
support your view.​