How could Charles I win the ECW

Was discussing this with a friend, and two ways we thought Charles might stand a chance is if during the battle of Edgehill had Rupert of the Rhine's men not gone on a gander and remained in formation, they might well have been able to stop Parliament's forces from reforming, thus allowing for a royalist victory at Edgehill perhaps paving the way for the taking or sieging of the capital and the taking of Gloucester.

Another way could be through victory at Marston Moor in 1644, though how this might come about I am unsure of.

Any thoughts?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
There are a lot of potential PODs in the ECW/WotTK/etc.

There are a lot of potential PODs in the ECW/WotTK/etc.

This one is certainly a possibility.

One thing to remember, is that one victory is rarely enough, in any conflict; the issues were stark enough, and enough blood had been shed, and enough threats had been made, that there would still have to be at least a campaign or two in England and/or Scotland/Ireland.

The Stuarts were not exactly at the top of their form at the time.

Best,
 
There are a lot of potential PODs in the ECW/WotTK/etc.

This one is certainly a possibility.

One thing to remember, is that one victory is rarely enough, in any conflict; the issues were stark enough, and enough blood had been shed, and enough threats had been made, that there would still have to be at least a campaign or two in England and/or Scotland/Ireland.

The Stuarts were not exactly at the top of their form at the time.

Best,

Very true, I was wondering, fi Charles had won at Edgehill the capital would've been open to him for the taking, so one does wonder whether he'd lay siege to the place and then take it or simply lay siege to it.
 
There are a lot of potential PODs in the ECW/WotTK/etc.

This one is certainly a possibility.

One thing to remember, is that one victory is rarely enough, in any conflict; the issues were stark enough, and enough blood had been shed, and enough threats had been made, that there would still have to be at least a campaign or two in England and/or Scotland/Ireland.

The Stuarts were not exactly at the top of their form at the time.

Best,

Edgehill would probably be the best choice, as it would allow the King to lay siege to London and probably end the war before it fully begins. As for Scotland and Ireland, yes they were issues, but more or less second compared to England. After all, as Cromwell proved, once you control England the other two easily fall. I can see a rap up campaign in England for maybe a few more months, then the King could turn to Scotland and Ireland. Of course, on the other hand, if Charles wins to quickly it could lead to more tensions, with people thinking its a "false victory" or something. But if he takes London, Charles would have to arrest the most vocal of opposition MPs and Lords and no doubt put a few to death as well. After that, get a new Parliament (maybe fix the charters to allow more favorable MPs, like Charles II did in the 1680s) and get them to give some taxation powers to the King, de facto legalizing his actions in the '30s.

As to Scotland, the King MUST invade, not gather another army and launch a few skirmishes. Unless he's able to occupy Edinburgh and Glasgow, and dissolve the Kirk he'll be in the same position as the late 1630s.

In truth Ireland might be the easiest to deal with, as Charles himself was pro Catholic (ie giving them rights, not restoring England to Rome) and should be able to win over most of the Confederates with concessions, religious rights and land restorations.

Sadly, I think a lasting success in regards to Charles's policies would require a more forceful, world based Sovereign, similar to his son.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Could be a nasty little war all around

Very true, I was wondering, fi Charles had won at Edgehill the capital would've been open to him for the taking, so one does wonder whether he'd lay siege to the place and then take it or simply lay siege to it.

Edgehill would probably be the best choice, as it would allow the King to lay siege to London and probably end the war before it fully begins. As for Scotland and Ireland, yes they were issues, but more or less second compared to England. After all, as Cromwell proved, once you control England the other two easily fall. I can see a rap up campaign in England for maybe a few more months, then the King could turn to Scotland and Ireland. Of course, on the other hand, if Charles wins to quickly it could lead to more tensions, with people thinking its a "false victory" or something. But if he takes London, Charles would have to arrest the most vocal of opposition MPs and Lords and no doubt put a few to death as well. After that, get a new Parliament (maybe fix the charters to allow more favorable MPs, like Charles II did in the 1680s) and get them to give some taxation powers to the King, de facto legalizing his actions in the '30s.

As to Scotland, the King MUST invade, not gather another army and launch a few skirmishes. Unless he's able to occupy Edinburgh and Glasgow, and dissolve the Kirk he'll be in the same position as the late 1630s.

In truth Ireland might be the easiest to deal with, as Charles himself was pro Catholic (ie giving them rights, not restoring England to Rome) and should be able to win over most of the Confederates with concessions, religious rights and land restorations.

Sadly, I think a lasting success in regards to Charles's policies would require a more forceful, world based Sovereign, similar to his son.

There are certainly a wide range of PODs and ripples. Makes one wonder why these conflicts get more attention.

Best,
 
Top