History Today at Hatchards

Generalship in the First Civil War 1642-1644

A.H. Burne assesses the achievements of the leading generals of the first English Civil War.

Professional historians are generally chary about placing individuals—particularly soldiers—in an order of merit. The amateur has fewer inhibitions; and in this essay I propose to attempt an assessment of the leading generals in the First Civil War, of whom the best known are Oliver Cromwell, Sir Thomas (afterwards Lord) Fairfax, and Prince Rupert. But I shall stop short at the battle of Naseby, when the issue of the war was decided, and must therefore guard against the error of judging men’s early achievements in the light of their ultimate fame. Heaven-born generals are few; and the average general’s early achievements are often unimpressive. Frederick the Great ran away at his first battle; the Duke of Wellington was badly rattled when commanding a battalion at Seringapatam; Stonewall Jackson behaved abominably when acting as a subordinate at the battle of White Oak Swamp; the Duke of Monmouth defeated Marlborough (then Lord Churchill) at Philip’s Norton. So we must forget Dunbar and Worcester and concentrate upon the problem before us. If Naseby had put an end to the military careers of all the leading generals in the First Civil War, how would history assess them?

To read this article in full you need to be either a print + archive subscriber, or else have purchased access to the online archive.

If you are already a subscriber, please ensure you are logged in. 

Buy Subscription | Buy Online Access | Log In

If you are logged in and still cannot read the article, please email digital@historytoday.com.

Get Miscellanies, our free weekly long read, in your inbox every week