----- Original Message ----- From: John K Shearer <jk_shearer@email.msn.com> To: <SCOTLAND-GENWEB-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, September 27, 1999 12:47 PM Subject: Roundheads v Scots > You are right Edward, The Battle of Worcester(3rd September 1651 was fought > a year later than the Battle of Dunbar (1st September 1650) but I had not > thought of it as a battle in a Scottish Civil War or as a Scots invasion of > England. > > Until now I had thought of the Battle of Worcester as a battle in the > English Civil War, with Charles Junior and his Cavaliers on one side and > Cromwell's Roundheads on the other. I had assumed that Dunbar had made > Scotland with England and Ireland part of the Commonwealth or United States > of Britain. (150 years before our cousins across the pond got the same > idea.) which Cromwell tried to avoid being dictator of. Well - After Dunbar Cromwell carried out an effective Union of Scotland and England. Remember that there were 30 seats for Scotland in Parliament. The Scottish Army invaded England, and was eventually defeated, and most of its members were taken prisoner. Worcester was very much a side show. the only important thing being that it saw Charles II stetting off for exile, totally defeated. I am not an expert on the English side of the Civil War, but I think that it was mainly Scots who were involved in the Battle with few if any English Royalists. > Do you seethe Battle of Philiphaugh, 13th September 1645, as a battle in a > Scottish Civil War or as a battle between Scots Cavaliers supporting English > Cavaliers in a fight with the legitimate army of Scotland which was in a > Solemn League and Covenant with Cromwellian / Parliamentary England? Ah ha, that is the $64,000. I happen to be a fan of Montrose. I basically agree with him that the Solemn League and Covenant was a disaster for Scotland. As a general he was unsurpassed - pity about the sack of Aberdeen though. I read Philiphaugh as being a battle between the Scottish Covenant Army and a mixed force of Anti Solemn League and Covenant - Montrose, (and only because of that pro King, Montrose had been for the Covenant before Henderson had begun his foolish actions), Scottish Cavaliers, and Irish Cavaliers, who came from the Irish Confederation who were pro King, but Pro Roman Catholic as well. (Isn't History wonderful). > Cromwell used my children's school in much the same way as your church but I > did not realise he had a problem with Scottish Presbyterians. The whole period from say 1640 to 1660 is extremely difficult and complicated. While the English Puritans were Calvinists of a kind, they had very different views from the Presbyterians as a whole. On the Parliamentary side there were also Anabaptists and the like whom the Kirk did not like. Cromwell himself was a Congregationalist, and so it goes on. The splits in the Church of Scotland - Protestors and Resolutioners and Engagers and the like sowed the seeds of further problems in the Kirk in later years. I hope that this helps Edward Andrews St. Nicholas Buccleuch Parish Church Dalkeith, Midlothian, Scotland Visit our Web site http://www.btinternet.com/~stnicholas.buccleuch/index.htm