'A Marching Song of the New Model Army' - English Civil War Song
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 11. 2023
- 'A Marching Song of the New Model Army' is a song that refers to the roundhead cause during the 1st English Civil War (1642-1651). The New Model Army was a parliamentary force composed mainly of Roundheads, who were supporters of the Parliamentarians led by Oliver Cromwell. The song reflects the spirit and ideals of the New Model Army during this turbulent period in English history.
The Roundheads, in contrast to the Cavaliers and the Royalists, were known for their discipline, dedication, and strict military organization. The marching song conveys a sense of unity and purpose among the soldiers as they fought for Parliament against the monarchy.
While the historical origin of the song may not be known, it absolutely could have been from the actual 1640s, or just a modern composition. The New Model Army played a crucial role in the eventual victory of Parliament, leading to the establishment of the Commonwealth of England and the short lived abolition of the monarchy. - Krátké a kreslené filmy
I’ve been reading about him, so I wanted to give my case rebutting the common claim that Cromwell was essentially just another monarch or that he was even a proto-fascist.
Cromwell explicitly rejected an offer from parliament to become king stating that God had already destroyed the monarchy and that he would not “build Jericho again”. He tried a variety of different systems from constitutional monarchism, to the parliamentary oligarchy, to a theocratic council, to a land owning democracy, to military rule, before finally essentially making himself a dictator. So, while his authoritarianism in some respects cannot be denied, it is clear that he did not do what he did out of personal ambition or a desire to become king.
Similarly the fact that Cromwell’s successor was his son is often used to paint Cromwell as having held no real beliefs, but in reality we really don’t have the historical information to know if Cromwell even wanted his son to take power after him. He had the power to choose his successor to the office of Lord Protector, but up until his death there was no real evidence he favored his son as a successor.
Finally, yes, Cromwell did some bad stuff in Ireland, but he invaded after they violently purged many English settlers and Irish Protestants, and sided with the English Royalists who had fled there. While there he did commit warcrimes but it was nothing super extraordinary for the time, the main actual harm he did was his reforms afterwards which marginalized Irish Catholics and empowered further settlement. However, generally Cromwell was actually quite religiously tolerant despite his radical puritan beliefs, as he attempted to create a new tolerant and loose church, he allowed Jewish people harbor in Britian for the first time in centuries, and he even intervened on the behalf of the Catholics he so hated when some Protestants in the English colonies tried to usurp their right to freedom of conscience.
You don't discuss Scotland in your defence of Cromwell. More tot he point, the problem with Cromwell surely was, gifted though he undoubtedly was, it needs more than one genius to establish an enduring system of government. Monarchy can do this as it is an institution not an individual, but Cromwell couldn't and his system crumbled from within less than two years after his death.
@jonathanoates1298 why would he need to mention Scotland in his comment? It was an excellent contribution, here here
I love how insanely egalitarian this interpretation of Englishness is. City apprentice and Anglian Yokel. And the reference to the Levellers. Just makes you appreciate the cause these men fought for.
There is something to be said for optimistic/aspirational patriotism. Not so much love of your country as it is, but love of your country as it could be.
The Levellers would be vilified for being too woke these days.
It is interesting that the Royalist side were actually more socially liberal than the parliamentarians, i think theres a case for the some of the roundheads to be a sort of proto-fascism or something in that area of thought
@@idunno2019 what gave you that idea?
@@varalderfreyr8438 Because they were? I mean Cromwell crushed any leftist movement in the country like the proto-socialist levellers. His Christianity was a very conservative form of Christianity. He was very militaristic and imperialistic too. He was a Proto-Hitlerian.
God look how romantic those battles were.
Love the heartiness and spirit in this song.
I never heard this one before.
This is adapted from a much later folk song, and is from a prog rock album of the 1970s. It has nothing to do with the NMA.
A link to backup your claims?
Possibly, but it is very obviously in reference to the NMA
Who was the artist?
@@aaravtulsyan The onus is on the OP to provide it surely? They admit it has no historical provenance in the description. Getting a bit tired of these accounts making claims about English history when they obviously know nothing about it.
@@RobotToaster Strawhead, a folk rock group from the 70s
I like the bagpipe touch.
English had pipes too, don't believe the tourist industry or separatists.
@@carolinetarrant2486 unfortunately most English pipes are gone but northumberland pipes are still going strong.
Back here again just like my ancestors.
Get your pikes boys, the king and parliament has betrayed the people.
Parliament has
amazing
Amazing!
The New Model Army was not led by Oliver Cromwell until the third Civil War/the Anglo-Scotch War after Sir Thomas Fairfax, who was general and Parliamentary commander-in-chief during the first and second Civil War, resigned his commission in opposition to the war with Charles II.
Parliament was not against the monarchy... how could it be when the Crown is part of Parliament just as the House of Commons and the House of Lords are. They fought for Parliament against the arbitrary prerogative of the Crown, not the institution itself... they wanted to restore Parliamentary Monarchy by bringing the King and his royal government back under the control of Parliamentary procedure... until the Army became dominated by radicals.
Also when they say "Marching for commonwealth, God, and the land!" they don't mean "the Commonwealth of England" as in the structure of government from 1649-1653 and again from 1659-1660... they mean "public welfare, general good or advantage", its was a phrase popular at that time dating from around the 15th century and was an early translation of the Latin word res publica... also the old meaning of "wealth", meant "well-being" so, said term literally meant "common well-being"... which is also what is implied by the name "Commonwealth of England"... but like with other states today that have the word "Democratic" in its name, the opposite is true... and as we Englishmen found out, the establishment of our English Parliamentary Monarchy was itself for the commonwealth of England... and both James I and Charles I did their upmost to undermine that great commonwealth that England had... and it took until 1688/89 to properly restore it.
The final form of the army during the 3rd civil war and into the regime he did lead, so I used the recent most form of the army. Parliament was no against the monarchy in the beginning, but the Roundhead side turned into anti-monarchist during the first civil war, it warped into Parliament being anti monarchy during the war and the foundation of the smaller English commonwealth in 1649, so I used the most recent examples of the army, and during the times they were getting increasingly radical as the war progressed into the commonwealth days. And I’m not saying about the glorious revolution and such, pretty right there.
You are correct, it was led by Sir Thomas Fairfax, but all those conflicts were between Parliament and King CharlesI. And, it was he who raised his banner at Nottingham to start the Civil Wars. It wasn't the radicals. Fairfax was Presbyterian and had Parliamentarian positions, but he backed off when Parliament proscribed sentence against Charles I. He was the best soldier, but he was not a politician. He was deeply disturbed by the Protestant division. Actually, the Army was lead by Independents, who became Congregationalists. They were actually the ones where we got much of our ideas of liberty from.
The Commonwealth was a republic, though that changed when Cromwell stepped in and made it a Protectorate. This was supposed to be until they could restore the republic.
You are right, it wasn't until the Glorious Revolution that the original intention of Parliament was to make a parliamentarian monarchy, which meant no one was above the law, which was important to Fairfax - he often referred to the Magna Carta. The Stuarts wanted to be absolutist like the French kings.This absolutism and Laudian reforms forced the conflict. If Prince Henry had lived, Charles older brother, I think the civil wars would have been averted.
Interesting!
This is written by Strawhead
The song originated some time in the 1640s.
Blue Bonnets over the border
Too bad this group became a totalitarian religious faith. Cromwell basically outlawed other forms of Christianity. (Especially Catholicism) and music and dancing. He made parts of I relsnd a wzsteland when attacked Stuart supporters and Catholics there.
Based Cromwell
@@fyrdman2185 He also closed Parliament which supposedly fighting to support. A very mixed character.
Bruh, no he didn’t, actually study this period in history
@@cromwell.is.awesome Everything i am aware of says that he closed Parliament and ruled as Lord Protector. I can't say how long that closed it for; but he and his form 0f Christianity ruled until his death. His son initially took over and eventually the Stuart line was returned. That lasted about one generation.
@@cromwell.is.awesomebruh no to you. He did f**k over Ireland . How can you call yourself a historian when all you do is suck up to biased sources so you never have to compete a single argument in your life.