WI: Charles I wins the Bishops' wars?

So for those of you who don't know, the Bishops' wars were what helped start the English Civil war. Basically, King Charles I tried to force the Church of Scotland to be more in line with the Church of England, enforcing an Anglican Book of Common Prayer in Scotland and I believe increasing either the number or the power of Bishops. Scotland didn't like this and rebelled against the King. Charles raised and army to fight the Scots but the two armies never really fought, and the war ended with the peace of Berwick. Though the war would latter restart a year later, which again ended in a truce/peace unfavorable to the King.

So what if Charles had forced and won a battle with the Scots? Would Charles have managed to force Scotland into line with England? Would a victory over Scotland mean that the English Parliament remains un-summoned, possibly for the entirety of Charles' reign? What about religiously? How long would Scotland remain in line with the Anglican Church? Would Parliament go the way of the Estates-General of France, still in existence but never summoned?
 
I'm far from confident that the initial premise (winning the War) is possible. Charles was desperately short of money , and his 'army' was really little more than an untrained militia for the most part. Beating Leslie in the field would be - -- challenging.

One of the interesting aspects of the English wars of the 17th century was the degree to which the King suffered through no longer being able to call upon the levies of the great magnates, which Henry VIII and Elizabeth had used so effectively - for instance against the Pilgrimage of Grace and the Rising of the Northern Earls. Granted, the rebellions then were mainly started by others of those same magnates , but at least it meant that the King's task simplified itself somewhat into a juggle of diplomacy between the great families.

Elizabeth , and James took out the military power of the magnates. That was good, in that there was no longer that potential for noble rebellion. But, absent any idea of a standing army, it meant that the later Stuarts , when confronted with popular uprisings had trouble mustering effective troops to deal with them .

The Bishops' War is a good example. I don't think, that with the army he had, Charles could win that war. Either he needed to start planning a lot earlier and training troops (sort of a precursor of Cromwell's New Model Army - there was a reason it was termed 'New Model' BTW); or avoid the war entirely as his father did .

Would avoiding or winning the Bishops' War completely change the course of 17th century events ? I'm doubtful of that, the underlying social tensions would remain : Prelate or Presbyter? ; who rules, Parliament of King? The tensions would break out somewhere .
 
Top