What do you think?
Rate this book
The Great Rebellion #2
The King's War, 1641-1647
"When King Charles came home from Scotland in the autumn of 1641, London was bright with hangings and the fountains ran wine..."With these words C V Wedgwood begins the second volume of her history of the Great Rebellion which carries the story from 1641 to 1647, from the Parliamentary passage of the Grand Remonstrance to the dramatic moment when the Scots surrendered the captive King Charles to the English.These were the years when the great battles of Marston Moor and Naseby were fought; when Prince Rupert emerged as the King's chief general; and Montrose conducted his brilliant but forlorn Scottish campaign. On the Parliamentary side the death of Pym was followed by the rise of Cromwell, both in Parliament and in the field. The New Model Army, which won the war for Parliament, was largely his creation. It was not merely an army but a new social force in English life.By the end of this volume, the Royalist cause had suffered a political and military defeat from which it could not recover. As the centre of power moved from King to Parliament; so it moved within Parliament itself to groups led by Cromwell, and at all times, the course of the struggle was profoundly influenced by events in Scotland and Ireland.Miss Wedgwood depicts this violent welter of military, political and religous developments with clarity, humour and sympathy; at the same time she communicates the tension and uncertainty, the texture of day-to-day life in a country at war with vivid and unforgettable immediacy.
704 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1958
12 people are currently reading
417 people want to read
About the author
C.V. Wedgwood
49 books75 followersDame (Cicely) Veronica Wedgwood OM DBE was an English historian who published under the name C. V. Wedgwood. Specializing in the history of 17th-century England and Continental Europe, her biographies and narrative histories "provided a clear, entertaining middle ground between popular and scholarly works."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
August 28, 2020
Five stars - not in its own right but as the strong second volume of a great trilogy.
"The King's War" is by far the longest book in C. V. Wedgwood's trilogy on the defeat of Charles I in the Great Rebellion. It does not stand on its own and should be read immediately after the first volume. "The King's War" simply picks up the narrative of "The King's Peace" which explains how the conflict began and tells the tale of the actual war. "The King's War" contains a great deal of detail. While I enjoyed it, I suspect that some readers will find it to be tedious in places. Nonetheless it merits five stars as it very admirably completes the tale begun in the first volume.
In the eyes of Wedgwood Charles I was too optimistic through-out the war and failed to see the disaster coming until it was upon him. He refused to budge from his position that he had the divine right to rule England. He bargained in bad faith offering concessions to buy time while always intending to totally crush his is foes.
As the war wears on, the judgment of Charles I begins to falter and his courage abandons him. He accuses his best general, Prince Rupert of betraying him and sends him away. He also acquiesces in the execution of his two most loyal ministers, William Laud, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Thomas Wentworth, the Earl of Strafford. As well, on numerous occasions, he permits the execution of Catholic priests wrongly accused of treason.
A major focus of the second half of the book is the power struggle within the alliance against the Charles I. Ultimately the sectaries or independents will push aside their Anglican and Presbyterian allies assuming total control of the Parliament which allows them to create a Republic with their man, Oliver Cromwell, at its head.
As the "The King's War" progresses, Wedgwood reveals an intense dislike of the sectaries who once in power would outlaw theatrical productions, dancing and the celebration of Christmas. During the war they ripped statues out of churches and smashed organs. They would have smashed the incomparable stained glass windows of Yorkminster Cathedral had the Royalist army not made agree not to in the surrender terms of the city.
"The King's War" is a very strong second volume. It must be acknowledged however that it does a much better job of telling in the story of the downfall of Charles I than it does in explaining the new government that was created after the demise of the old regime.
"The King's War" is by far the longest book in C. V. Wedgwood's trilogy on the defeat of Charles I in the Great Rebellion. It does not stand on its own and should be read immediately after the first volume. "The King's War" simply picks up the narrative of "The King's Peace" which explains how the conflict began and tells the tale of the actual war. "The King's War" contains a great deal of detail. While I enjoyed it, I suspect that some readers will find it to be tedious in places. Nonetheless it merits five stars as it very admirably completes the tale begun in the first volume.
In the eyes of Wedgwood Charles I was too optimistic through-out the war and failed to see the disaster coming until it was upon him. He refused to budge from his position that he had the divine right to rule England. He bargained in bad faith offering concessions to buy time while always intending to totally crush his is foes.
As the war wears on, the judgment of Charles I begins to falter and his courage abandons him. He accuses his best general, Prince Rupert of betraying him and sends him away. He also acquiesces in the execution of his two most loyal ministers, William Laud, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Thomas Wentworth, the Earl of Strafford. As well, on numerous occasions, he permits the execution of Catholic priests wrongly accused of treason.
A major focus of the second half of the book is the power struggle within the alliance against the Charles I. Ultimately the sectaries or independents will push aside their Anglican and Presbyterian allies assuming total control of the Parliament which allows them to create a Republic with their man, Oliver Cromwell, at its head.
As the "The King's War" progresses, Wedgwood reveals an intense dislike of the sectaries who once in power would outlaw theatrical productions, dancing and the celebration of Christmas. During the war they ripped statues out of churches and smashed organs. They would have smashed the incomparable stained glass windows of Yorkminster Cathedral had the Royalist army not made agree not to in the surrender terms of the city.
"The King's War" is a very strong second volume. It must be acknowledged however that it does a much better job of telling in the story of the downfall of Charles I than it does in explaining the new government that was created after the demise of the old regime.
July 4, 2019
A more challenging read than its precedessor, from which it continues directly, and without the scene-setting opening overview of the earlier book (reviewed here), this is a hugely informative and very entertaining narrative account of the First English Civil War. Its scope is vast, but Wedgwood commands her material judiciously and elegantly. Like The King's Peace, this book is never overwhelming and is almost novelistically gripping at times, with a cast of characters, locations, and events that even the most ambitious writers of fiction (historical, say, or epic fantasy) would balk at. For me, The King's War gained an added level of interest from my having grown up surrounded by many of its major sites of action (Oxford, Banbury, Aynho, Cropredy, Edge Hill), and later lived for several years in one of them (York); but even without such connections, I would have found it fascinating. It's a pity that Wedgwood didn't write a third volume covering the Second and Third Civil Wars, but I still have the opportunity of re-reading The Trial of Charles I to look forward to.
June 21, 2019
I didn't like this one as much as the first volume probably because a large part of it is military history which is not in my area of interest. I am constantly amazed at the amount of research she must have done in writing these three volumes.
August 30, 2025
The King's War: 1641-1647 is the second book in historian C.V. Wedgwood's trilogy on the English Civil War.
The storyline picks up where The King's Peace 1637-1641 left off, with England tearing itself apart over largely overblown Protestant concerns that King Charles I and his wife Henrietta Maria are crypto-Catholics intent on converting the country from the faith of Luther. As the first volume concluded, Parliament (Roundheads) and the king and his men (Cavaliers) were on the verge of full-blown civil war.
The Coventantor movement in Scotland, also a response from concerned Protestants over King Charles's attempts to implement directives like a new Prayer Book and objectionable methods of worship, was coming to pose a further threat to peace in the king's dominion. A third complicating factor was a Catholic revolt in Ireland largely directed at Protestant English landowners and rumors that King Charles was willing to ally with the Irish rebels to enforce his supposedly Catholic leanings.
Things really get going in book two on January 4th, 1642.
Charles attempts to have his five leading Parliamentary opponents arrested. He shows up in person to arrest John Pym, John Hampden, Denzil Holles, William Strode, and Arthur Haselrig. As they were not present, the king makes a fool of himself by showing up in person to Parliamentary House in order to carry out the arrests.
Wedgwood insinuates this act cost Charles what Royalist support remained in London and was poor political calculation on his end.
Had Charles succeeded," she wrote, "his act of inspired audacity would have been an object lesson on the might and authority of the Sovereign against the factious subject. But if there was the least risk of failure, the project was folly; the attempt, and not the deed, would confound him utterly. He would not, unless he acting on an absolute certainty, have taken part in the arrest himself, for by doing so he cut off his own retreat; he would never be able to shift the blame."
Parliament's attempts to seize the initiative are blunted by divisions in London between the Presbyterians (members focused solely on the anti-Catholic religious element of the war and who will, it is assumed, spare the king if he merely apologizes and backs off his religious reforms) and a second group who want to take out the king at all costs and form a sort of all-powerful Parliament.
A smaller group, the Levellers, want to accomplish what their name indicates: using the conclusion of the war to create a society where differences not just in religion but in social status and rank are levelled. They are held up as believers of a proto-Thomas Paine style of democracy.
These huge divisions did hurt the Roundheads' side, but the Cavaliers had their own issues. The king was frequently shown to grasp at straws and continue to hold out hope for victory even when his Royalist cause was in shambles, and divisions between Royalists like Prince Rupert and Lord George Digby ended with them at one another's throats when they needed to be piecing together a coherent strategy to defeat their Parliamentary enemies.
The king operates from the home base he sets up in York, while his wife is overseas during the book's entirety seeking to get aid from European capitals ranging from Paris to the Hague. The book also brings the positions of countries like France and the Netherlands toward the English Civil War into focus, and to hear the author tell it, "King and Parliament each had to be on terms with foreign powers if only to prevent the other gaining help from them."
But Charles had a huge disadvantage from the get-go-the Royalist side's inability to control England's seaports is a huge liability through The King's War 1641-1647, even more so when it comes time to find potential landing spots for pro-Charles troops from Ireland.
Both sides in the war sought to maintain a delicate balancing act. The king maintained that he was not against the idea of Parliament per se, but against the wicked faction of counsellors who had seized power in it. In the same vein, the leaders of Parliament distinguished between not wanting a king (which, until the rise of the non-Presbyterian faction, was maintained) and merely wanting to turn Charles away from his own evil counsellors who had poisoned the well of their relationship.
The machinations between Charles and Ireland/Scotland could fill its own volume, as he goes back and forth with Ireland's Earl of Ormonde and Earl of Antrim and has to manage the attempts to put down the Scottish Covenanter rebellion with no help from the likes of the Marquis of Argyll.
Without getting too into the weeds, Wedgwood does an admirable job weaving together all the subplots of the English Civil War with their political, religious, and familial undertones and overtones. She brings these together nicely into a coherent narrative which does not look focus on the overarching arguments over where the real locus of power (Parliamentary or King Charles I) should lay in Great Britain.
The first recorded clash takes place July 15th, 1642 between Royalist Lord Strange and Parliament's Lord Wharton in Manchester. This had followed a period of both sides whipping up a frenzy to recruit troops, with London coming out strong for the Roundheads and Wales chipping in a lot for the Cavaliers. The anti-Popish feeling in London was not glossed over; a scene is recounted where "the rabble....broke up (the Capuchin) chapel, destroyed the altarpiece by Rubens and burn an image of that 'deceiving warlock' St. Francis of Assisi."
Although Catholics did commit atrocities in Ireland against the Protestant landowners, England was a hotbed of anti-Catholic violence during the war: a young missionary priest by the name of Father Heath was disemboweled after being hung in Tyburn.
Although the book's coverage of the war's various battles is serviceable, it does not go into excessive detail but instead harnesses its energy for focusing on the broader picture.
There is, however, a compelling retelling of the Battle of Edgehill, where Prince Rupert (the king's son-in-law, a veteran of the 30 Years War on the mainland, and one of the primary Royalist commanders in the book) and Sir Jacob Astley, who took over for the pouting Earl of Lindsay, duke it out with the Earl of Essex's troops in the largely inconclusive, though deadly, October 23rd, 1642, battle.
Out of East Anglia, Oliver Cromwell's Parliamentary army comes to play an increasingly big role in the war. Cromwell is sketched in by Wedgwood as a cryptic man whose intentions and machinations are often kept under the tightest of wraps. His role in the New Model Army and the growing clout he gains in the House of Commons as the war progresses are unspooled really well by Wedgwood.
Cromwell's pummeling of the Royalists at the Battle of Naseby in June 1645, on top of his victory at Marston Moor the previous summer, were major boons to his cause when it came time to push for leadership in a post-Charles England. Cromwell's religiosity comes through in his responses to his triumphs, and he increasingly becomes a leader of the anti-Presbyterian faction in the House of Commons.
By the spring of 1646 even Charles could no longer deny the dire straits he was in. The book laid out one Cavalier defeat after another and the constant drip of bad news for the Royalists, with the king even pleading toward the end for the Vatican to intervene on his behalf. In May, he made yet another miscalculation brought on by these dire straits: surrendering himself into the hands of the Covenanters in Scotland.
Charles hoped that he could exploit the growing chasm between the Presbyterians, disproportionately Scottish, and the increasingly Cromwell-led sectarians. But his faulty reasoning was increasingly apparent, as he was not willing to sign the Coventnating oath and the Presbyterians seemed to be okay with harshly punishing Charles.
He was operating under the assumption that, as a sovereign without peers, there was no way his captors would entertain the idea of putting him on trial or causing any physical harm to befall him. But as the book winds to a close, it becomes more and more apparent that he was mistaken: the Scots very well might be willing to deal with the sectarians when it comes to giving him what they viewed as his just desserts.
The King's War, 1641-1647, is such a fabulous work of nonfiction. It keeps up the spectacular pacing of the first entry, and the host of characters and subplots (thanks to Wedgwood's skill as a writer) congeal into a strong story.
Even when unconventional theologians like John Lilburn and John Goodwin pop up or a man with both warmaking and diplomatic callings like the Earl of Loudon make appearances, they fit right in with the thread running through the English Civil War's storytelling universe.
This book was close to earning five stars. But despite being two volumes into this trilogy, Charles I still seems a hard to pin down figure. It was probably challenging for Wedgwood to do this given his duplicitousness in the realm of politics, but his motivations and persona still border on impenetrable at times. Since the book is supposed to focus on him as the fulcrum on which the conflict moves, this causes it (although just barely) to miss out on five stars.
But it is still worth reading and replete with elegant prose for a nonfiction book.
It fills in a lot of gaps that all but the biggest buffs of English Civil War history might have, and its presentation of the causes and personalities behind this awful conflict are pulled off with a high level of panache.
Four and a half stars for sure would be fair.
-Andrew Canfield Denver, Colorado
The storyline picks up where The King's Peace 1637-1641 left off, with England tearing itself apart over largely overblown Protestant concerns that King Charles I and his wife Henrietta Maria are crypto-Catholics intent on converting the country from the faith of Luther. As the first volume concluded, Parliament (Roundheads) and the king and his men (Cavaliers) were on the verge of full-blown civil war.
The Coventantor movement in Scotland, also a response from concerned Protestants over King Charles's attempts to implement directives like a new Prayer Book and objectionable methods of worship, was coming to pose a further threat to peace in the king's dominion. A third complicating factor was a Catholic revolt in Ireland largely directed at Protestant English landowners and rumors that King Charles was willing to ally with the Irish rebels to enforce his supposedly Catholic leanings.
Things really get going in book two on January 4th, 1642.
Charles attempts to have his five leading Parliamentary opponents arrested. He shows up in person to arrest John Pym, John Hampden, Denzil Holles, William Strode, and Arthur Haselrig. As they were not present, the king makes a fool of himself by showing up in person to Parliamentary House in order to carry out the arrests.
Wedgwood insinuates this act cost Charles what Royalist support remained in London and was poor political calculation on his end.
Had Charles succeeded," she wrote, "his act of inspired audacity would have been an object lesson on the might and authority of the Sovereign against the factious subject. But if there was the least risk of failure, the project was folly; the attempt, and not the deed, would confound him utterly. He would not, unless he acting on an absolute certainty, have taken part in the arrest himself, for by doing so he cut off his own retreat; he would never be able to shift the blame."
Parliament's attempts to seize the initiative are blunted by divisions in London between the Presbyterians (members focused solely on the anti-Catholic religious element of the war and who will, it is assumed, spare the king if he merely apologizes and backs off his religious reforms) and a second group who want to take out the king at all costs and form a sort of all-powerful Parliament.
A smaller group, the Levellers, want to accomplish what their name indicates: using the conclusion of the war to create a society where differences not just in religion but in social status and rank are levelled. They are held up as believers of a proto-Thomas Paine style of democracy.
These huge divisions did hurt the Roundheads' side, but the Cavaliers had their own issues. The king was frequently shown to grasp at straws and continue to hold out hope for victory even when his Royalist cause was in shambles, and divisions between Royalists like Prince Rupert and Lord George Digby ended with them at one another's throats when they needed to be piecing together a coherent strategy to defeat their Parliamentary enemies.
The king operates from the home base he sets up in York, while his wife is overseas during the book's entirety seeking to get aid from European capitals ranging from Paris to the Hague. The book also brings the positions of countries like France and the Netherlands toward the English Civil War into focus, and to hear the author tell it, "King and Parliament each had to be on terms with foreign powers if only to prevent the other gaining help from them."
But Charles had a huge disadvantage from the get-go-the Royalist side's inability to control England's seaports is a huge liability through The King's War 1641-1647, even more so when it comes time to find potential landing spots for pro-Charles troops from Ireland.
Both sides in the war sought to maintain a delicate balancing act. The king maintained that he was not against the idea of Parliament per se, but against the wicked faction of counsellors who had seized power in it. In the same vein, the leaders of Parliament distinguished between not wanting a king (which, until the rise of the non-Presbyterian faction, was maintained) and merely wanting to turn Charles away from his own evil counsellors who had poisoned the well of their relationship.
The machinations between Charles and Ireland/Scotland could fill its own volume, as he goes back and forth with Ireland's Earl of Ormonde and Earl of Antrim and has to manage the attempts to put down the Scottish Covenanter rebellion with no help from the likes of the Marquis of Argyll.
Without getting too into the weeds, Wedgwood does an admirable job weaving together all the subplots of the English Civil War with their political, religious, and familial undertones and overtones. She brings these together nicely into a coherent narrative which does not look focus on the overarching arguments over where the real locus of power (Parliamentary or King Charles I) should lay in Great Britain.
The first recorded clash takes place July 15th, 1642 between Royalist Lord Strange and Parliament's Lord Wharton in Manchester. This had followed a period of both sides whipping up a frenzy to recruit troops, with London coming out strong for the Roundheads and Wales chipping in a lot for the Cavaliers. The anti-Popish feeling in London was not glossed over; a scene is recounted where "the rabble....broke up (the Capuchin) chapel, destroyed the altarpiece by Rubens and burn an image of that 'deceiving warlock' St. Francis of Assisi."
Although Catholics did commit atrocities in Ireland against the Protestant landowners, England was a hotbed of anti-Catholic violence during the war: a young missionary priest by the name of Father Heath was disemboweled after being hung in Tyburn.
Although the book's coverage of the war's various battles is serviceable, it does not go into excessive detail but instead harnesses its energy for focusing on the broader picture.
There is, however, a compelling retelling of the Battle of Edgehill, where Prince Rupert (the king's son-in-law, a veteran of the 30 Years War on the mainland, and one of the primary Royalist commanders in the book) and Sir Jacob Astley, who took over for the pouting Earl of Lindsay, duke it out with the Earl of Essex's troops in the largely inconclusive, though deadly, October 23rd, 1642, battle.
Out of East Anglia, Oliver Cromwell's Parliamentary army comes to play an increasingly big role in the war. Cromwell is sketched in by Wedgwood as a cryptic man whose intentions and machinations are often kept under the tightest of wraps. His role in the New Model Army and the growing clout he gains in the House of Commons as the war progresses are unspooled really well by Wedgwood.
Cromwell's pummeling of the Royalists at the Battle of Naseby in June 1645, on top of his victory at Marston Moor the previous summer, were major boons to his cause when it came time to push for leadership in a post-Charles England. Cromwell's religiosity comes through in his responses to his triumphs, and he increasingly becomes a leader of the anti-Presbyterian faction in the House of Commons.
By the spring of 1646 even Charles could no longer deny the dire straits he was in. The book laid out one Cavalier defeat after another and the constant drip of bad news for the Royalists, with the king even pleading toward the end for the Vatican to intervene on his behalf. In May, he made yet another miscalculation brought on by these dire straits: surrendering himself into the hands of the Covenanters in Scotland.
Charles hoped that he could exploit the growing chasm between the Presbyterians, disproportionately Scottish, and the increasingly Cromwell-led sectarians. But his faulty reasoning was increasingly apparent, as he was not willing to sign the Coventnating oath and the Presbyterians seemed to be okay with harshly punishing Charles.
He was operating under the assumption that, as a sovereign without peers, there was no way his captors would entertain the idea of putting him on trial or causing any physical harm to befall him. But as the book winds to a close, it becomes more and more apparent that he was mistaken: the Scots very well might be willing to deal with the sectarians when it comes to giving him what they viewed as his just desserts.
The King's War, 1641-1647, is such a fabulous work of nonfiction. It keeps up the spectacular pacing of the first entry, and the host of characters and subplots (thanks to Wedgwood's skill as a writer) congeal into a strong story.
Even when unconventional theologians like John Lilburn and John Goodwin pop up or a man with both warmaking and diplomatic callings like the Earl of Loudon make appearances, they fit right in with the thread running through the English Civil War's storytelling universe.
This book was close to earning five stars. But despite being two volumes into this trilogy, Charles I still seems a hard to pin down figure. It was probably challenging for Wedgwood to do this given his duplicitousness in the realm of politics, but his motivations and persona still border on impenetrable at times. Since the book is supposed to focus on him as the fulcrum on which the conflict moves, this causes it (although just barely) to miss out on five stars.
But it is still worth reading and replete with elegant prose for a nonfiction book.
It fills in a lot of gaps that all but the biggest buffs of English Civil War history might have, and its presentation of the causes and personalities behind this awful conflict are pulled off with a high level of panache.
Four and a half stars for sure would be fair.
-Andrew Canfield Denver, Colorado
January 12, 2020
Ask anyone what the American Civil War was about and they will immediately say "slavery," and that one word suffices as a a fully true and comprehensive explanation, even if scholars can and do write volumes of fascinating detail and color around it. The English Civil War, on the other hand, cannot be readily explained by any single idea. It was about disagreements over religion, about the rights of a King versus the rights of the other nobility versus the rights of commoners, about the rights of the Irish and the Scottish, about Continental politics, about patriotism, and about politics and the struggle for economic advantage masquerading as any or all of those things at any one time. C.V. Wedgwood's monster two volume set (The King's Peace and The King's War) tells the story of the conflict from its origins in peace-time through the back and forth of armed conflict, up to and past the military victory of Parliament, by describing what was happening and what choices the various parties were making on a day to day basis. The choice to tell the story in this way highlights the intricacies of the motivations of the parties, the way disparate events influence one another, and the sheer confusion of the times. At the end I felt both much better informed about what happened but also humble about really understanding what it was all about.
I wouldn't recommend this book to everyone--all that detail can be a bit of a slog at times--but I'm a huge fan of Wedgwood's vigorous prose and her devastating eye for character, so I quite enjoyed it.
I wouldn't recommend this book to everyone--all that detail can be a bit of a slog at times--but I'm a huge fan of Wedgwood's vigorous prose and her devastating eye for character, so I quite enjoyed it.
March 15, 2016
An exquisitely detailed account of the English civil war between Charles I and Parliament. The author achieved her goal of providing an essentially day-by-day narrative that highlights the precarious balance in which the war mostly hung. Far from the forgone conclusion that analysts, armed with hindsight, claim, the war at many points could have gone either way, or at least it seemed that way at the time to those involved. The outcome was not the product of a General's meticulously planned strategy, but rather so much came down to chance and the personalities and personal pride, principles and folly of the persons involved; a point with which Tolstoy would have unhesitatingly agreed.
Unlike the previous volume (The King's Peace), this volume was necessarily focussed on military matters—the movements of armies, the deliberations of war councils, the tactic and outcome of battles, strategy and sieges, and the geography and geopolitics. It of course covered the attempts at negotiating peace; the internal politics and leadership struggles; international relations and alliances; and the role throughout of religion. It is thus a book for someone who is interested in the movements of batalions, the formation of regiments and the like. I am such a person, and greatly enjoyed it. But I preferred the first volume which necessarily focussed more on the politicS, law reform and parliamentary tactics.
Unlike the previous volume (The King's Peace), this volume was necessarily focussed on military matters—the movements of armies, the deliberations of war councils, the tactic and outcome of battles, strategy and sieges, and the geography and geopolitics. It of course covered the attempts at negotiating peace; the internal politics and leadership struggles; international relations and alliances; and the role throughout of religion. It is thus a book for someone who is interested in the movements of batalions, the formation of regiments and the like. I am such a person, and greatly enjoyed it. But I preferred the first volume which necessarily focussed more on the politicS, law reform and parliamentary tactics.
February 11, 2016
I can't believe I've never read this before. You haven't really studied the Civil War until you have read it. Beautifully balanced between the King and Parliament, and the factions and parties that divided both sides, and very strong on the Irish uprising and Montrose's rebellion (the bits of the 'English' Civil War that weren't English at all), making clear all the complex feuding and intrigues that went on, but still bringing out the essential military story. Possibly compared to more recent work, the impact of the fighting seems underplayed. I am thinking of the statistic that this war killed the most people as a percentage of the population. But there again that is a little meaningless when plague and a myriad other diseases meant that death was far more commonplace then than in the 20th Century, and violent death, or execution, happened constantly. The writing is extremely elegant, and the latter chapters strike an elegaic note. Wedgwood shows real regret when recounting, in ruthless detail, the endless willfully optimistic miscalculations that led, eventually, to the King's humiliating defeat.
July 18, 2018
A readable and useful history of the Civil War. Gives a great overview but almost seems to pack too much information: the whirlwind tour of people and places from such a high level is hard to take in. Also fails to define a few important terms likely to be unfamiliar to the current reader such as presbytery.
September 1, 2023
The King’s War deals only with the First Civil War part of the collective War of the Three Kingdoms.
Parliament issued the “Militia Ordinance” and, thus, assumed sovereign powers to itself and the King responds in like and the war was on.
At first all seems to be going the way of King Charles especially after he gets the help of his nephews Princes Rupert and Maurice of the Rhine who had fought as professional soldiers in the ongoing Thirty Years War of religion on the Continent. Parliament’s armies are constantly on the back foot unhelped by the constant bickering between its generals. This whilst various peace parties in Parliament threaten to undermine their military operations, seeming to wanting to surrender.
All is going right for the King until an intercept by the Scots reveals to them that, despite what Charles has been saying to them, he intends to invade Scotland with a Catholic Irish army. This changes everything as the Scots Parliament joins its English counterpart in making war on King Charles.
Meantime the chance of a truce in Ireland between Charles’ loyalists and the revolting Irish that would give the King the Government and rebel troops that he desires, is foiled by the Catholic priests encouraged by the Papal Emissary who tells them to settle for nothing less than an all Catholic Ireland and all church land taken during the Reformation being restored and compensation for its use being paid. The Pope gets involved after Charles sends an emissary of his own to Rome to negotiate a treaty for Ireland (and there are already two different ones being negotiate in Ireland at Charles’ instructions) and asking for funds.
In addition to Ireland Charles is trying to get troops and money from Spain, France (which is at war with Spain), The Netherlands (which is also at war with Spain), Denmark and Sweden (who are at war with each other).
Soon it becomes obvious to both Charles and his Anglo-Scottish opponents that their armies need reforming on a national basis rather than the odd podge regional formations they currently have. Rupert, despite all his professionalism, fails, mainly due to Royalist Court politics and Charles’ constant interference together with his habit of giving duplicitous answers to those who serve him. Parliament succeeds and The New Model Army under Sir Thomas Fairfax, with Oliver Cromwell as its driving force, soon prove their worth at Marsden Moor. From then on it is only a matter of time despite Prince Rupert’s best efforts, with him constantly spending as much time fighting Charles’ courtiers with their amateur military and political advice, as he does The New Model Army.
There is a small invasion of Scotland by Irish Catholics and they soon find a leader in the turn coat Earl of Montrose who declares for the King and brings many of the Highland clans into the war but The New Model Army, driven mainly by Nol Cromwell, is proves invincible.
Given the fact that King Charles I was a profound schemer who word could never be trusted and who was always running two or three different contrary schemes at the same time, often to the detriment of his own Royalists supporters, war was inevitable. Given the determination of so many strong willed men in Parliament and the unlooked for military genius of Oliver Cromwell, his defeat was just as inevitable.
Parliament already had examples of how untrustworthy Charles was but the capture of the King's personal papers after the battle at Marsden Moor shewed just how duplicitous the King was being.
This is a well written broad brush telling of The First Civil War.
Parliament issued the “Militia Ordinance” and, thus, assumed sovereign powers to itself and the King responds in like and the war was on.
At first all seems to be going the way of King Charles especially after he gets the help of his nephews Princes Rupert and Maurice of the Rhine who had fought as professional soldiers in the ongoing Thirty Years War of religion on the Continent. Parliament’s armies are constantly on the back foot unhelped by the constant bickering between its generals. This whilst various peace parties in Parliament threaten to undermine their military operations, seeming to wanting to surrender.
All is going right for the King until an intercept by the Scots reveals to them that, despite what Charles has been saying to them, he intends to invade Scotland with a Catholic Irish army. This changes everything as the Scots Parliament joins its English counterpart in making war on King Charles.
Meantime the chance of a truce in Ireland between Charles’ loyalists and the revolting Irish that would give the King the Government and rebel troops that he desires, is foiled by the Catholic priests encouraged by the Papal Emissary who tells them to settle for nothing less than an all Catholic Ireland and all church land taken during the Reformation being restored and compensation for its use being paid. The Pope gets involved after Charles sends an emissary of his own to Rome to negotiate a treaty for Ireland (and there are already two different ones being negotiate in Ireland at Charles’ instructions) and asking for funds.
In addition to Ireland Charles is trying to get troops and money from Spain, France (which is at war with Spain), The Netherlands (which is also at war with Spain), Denmark and Sweden (who are at war with each other).
Soon it becomes obvious to both Charles and his Anglo-Scottish opponents that their armies need reforming on a national basis rather than the odd podge regional formations they currently have. Rupert, despite all his professionalism, fails, mainly due to Royalist Court politics and Charles’ constant interference together with his habit of giving duplicitous answers to those who serve him. Parliament succeeds and The New Model Army under Sir Thomas Fairfax, with Oliver Cromwell as its driving force, soon prove their worth at Marsden Moor. From then on it is only a matter of time despite Prince Rupert’s best efforts, with him constantly spending as much time fighting Charles’ courtiers with their amateur military and political advice, as he does The New Model Army.
There is a small invasion of Scotland by Irish Catholics and they soon find a leader in the turn coat Earl of Montrose who declares for the King and brings many of the Highland clans into the war but The New Model Army, driven mainly by Nol Cromwell, is proves invincible.
Given the fact that King Charles I was a profound schemer who word could never be trusted and who was always running two or three different contrary schemes at the same time, often to the detriment of his own Royalists supporters, war was inevitable. Given the determination of so many strong willed men in Parliament and the unlooked for military genius of Oliver Cromwell, his defeat was just as inevitable.
Parliament already had examples of how untrustworthy Charles was but the capture of the King's personal papers after the battle at Marsden Moor shewed just how duplicitous the King was being.
This is a well written broad brush telling of The First Civil War.
July 16, 2025
Reading this is a pretty formidable undertaking, mainly because of it's length and immense detail. However, I would not want it any shorter or less detailed! It is beautifully written. I would say it's written for the general reader,rather than professional historians or students of the period because the author is always keeping up the narrative momentum. I knew the basics about the Civil War, or thought I did, but reading this I realise how little I did know about this chaotic period.
The constant manoevrings of armies, the sieges and so on,is immensely complicated but nevertheless fascinating. She is very good at painting short,vivid portraits of the great many characters involved, and that human element makes the story so engaging. I did get a bit lost in the various religious groupings - the Covenanters, The Independents etc etc I must admit.
Some of the detail(which several reviewers complain about) is what makes this book so readable. For example, the account of the execution of Archbishop Laud is horrifying and unforgettable.
Some reviewers have claimed to see a Royalist bias - I disagree - she is very even handed.
A truly great achievement.
The constant manoevrings of armies, the sieges and so on,is immensely complicated but nevertheless fascinating. She is very good at painting short,vivid portraits of the great many characters involved, and that human element makes the story so engaging. I did get a bit lost in the various religious groupings - the Covenanters, The Independents etc etc I must admit.
Some of the detail(which several reviewers complain about) is what makes this book so readable. For example, the account of the execution of Archbishop Laud is horrifying and unforgettable.
Some reviewers have claimed to see a Royalist bias - I disagree - she is very even handed.
A truly great achievement.
March 9, 2022
Very well researched and written. Not only does Wedgwood go into great detail on the actions of the King during the war, but also expresses the personal effects, by giving personal examples of how brutal the civil war was. She also writes a lot more about the role of Wales and Queen Henrietta Maria and Prince Rupert during the time, which I find other historians that I have read don’t really touch on, which is fascinating. Highly recommend :)
May 15, 2018
good account of English civil war and its constitutional significance, told largely from the perspective of the royalist side
very detailed
very detailed
July 16, 2018
Better than Wedgewood's history of the Thirty Years' War.
Read
September 8, 2020It's good But less good for Charles
Want to read
November 14, 2020Copyright 1958, First printing 1959.
First edition
First edition
December 6, 2022
Exciting account of the English Civil War, fantastic discussions of the motives of each side, and accounts of the battles.
February 2, 2025
Her writing as always is spectacular. As compared to the King’s Peace, with maybe the exception of the first book within that, there are several profound, moving, and even funny passages.
January 9, 2014
A coherent account of a very incoherent time. Plots and counterplots and counter-counterplots and counter-counter-counterplots on all sides. And a lot of really savy politicians on the Right but Repulsive side, and not enough on the Wrong but Wromantic side. (See 1066 and all That by Sellar & Yeatman.)
May 13, 2015
More detail than I wanted.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews