What do you think?
Cromwell against the Scots: The Last Anglo-Scottish War, 1650 - 1652
After an introduction establishing Cromwell's war against the Scots from July 1650 to May 1652, this book discusses Charles' landing and Fairfax's resignation as commander-in-chief of the English Republican Army, both events occurred on the same day. It then addresses the causes of the war, Charles II's landing in Northern Scotland from the Continent.
220 pages, Paperback
First published October 1, 1997
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
July 13, 2021
A thorough examination of the war between England, led by Cromwell, and Scotland in 1650-52. The Scots had Charles II crowned but had various factions that didn’t agree and once Charles led the Scottish army into England and therefore were seen as an invading foreign army, it all ended in disaster. Cromwell is clearly an impressive leader and strategist. The book details all the battle stuff, and interestingly what happened to the prisoners, so many were shipped off to the colonies that Scotland’s population would’ve taken ages to recover. The authors comments in his conclusion on Scottish independence felt intrusive to me but I take his point that history matters.
July 16, 2021
The subtitle for John Grainger’s Cromwell against the Scots is ‘The Last Anglo-Scottish War 1650-1652’. Followers of the Jacobites might contest that, but Grainger holds his ground. He notes that there has been no narrative military history of this important conflict in modern times. Grainger fixed that in the first edition of this book in 1997 but has now updated it with a revised structure and to incorporate new material.
Grainger gets off to an unfortunate start when he argues that Scots suffer from “the usual inferiority complex”, thus indicating a subtle bias that underlies his analysis all the way through to his unfortunate conclusion. The military history that forms the bulk of his book tells the story of Cromwell’s invasion of Scotland in 1650, which both sides viewed as inevitable once Charles II arrived in Scotland to claim his thrones. The Scots gathered their army under Leslie and stayed on the defensive, hoping for an opportunity while wearing down the English invaders. He thought he had that at Dunbar in September, but brilliant generalship by Cromwell, argues Grainger, led to a Scottish rout and retreat to Stirling. After various manoeuvres, Cromwell dislodged the Scots who then marched into England to arouse the Royalist supporters into joining a grand army with Charles at its head. But as much as the Scots resented an English invasion, the English equally scorned the Scottish adventure – this is a central point in Grainger’s argument. The English support the Scots required proved significantly reluctant to come forward, though some did, and the army became entrapped by Cromwell in Worcester. A year to the day after Dunbar, Cromwell attacked and routed the Scots again, but this time with no chance of redemption as almost none of the Scots made it home to fight again. In the meantime, Monck, left behind by Cromwell, captured Stirling and pulled off what amounted to something of a bluff with his stretched forces in capturing Scottish towns while fostering political discontent amongst the Scottish hierarchy. Grainger notes that Scottish resistance imploded under English pressure and their incessant squabbling. Their defeat was total, and they remained under the English yoke until 1660 and the Restoration of Charles II.
Grainger’s narrative is engaging and rattles along; his description of the Battle of Dunbar is particularly good. His analysis of the fractured Scottish political scene is also insightful, though he rarely lingers on any similar problems in England with just a few forays into why some in England would not fight the Scots who had backed them in the English Civil War. Grainger’s text is well-supported by maps and monochrome photographs of interesting artefacts and place, and portraits of the main players. It is unfortunate that he concludes with an appeal to the British union that is mired in antiquated thinking, but that aside, the narrative elements are well worth reading for students of warfare in the British Isles in the Early Modern Period.
Grainger gets off to an unfortunate start when he argues that Scots suffer from “the usual inferiority complex”, thus indicating a subtle bias that underlies his analysis all the way through to his unfortunate conclusion. The military history that forms the bulk of his book tells the story of Cromwell’s invasion of Scotland in 1650, which both sides viewed as inevitable once Charles II arrived in Scotland to claim his thrones. The Scots gathered their army under Leslie and stayed on the defensive, hoping for an opportunity while wearing down the English invaders. He thought he had that at Dunbar in September, but brilliant generalship by Cromwell, argues Grainger, led to a Scottish rout and retreat to Stirling. After various manoeuvres, Cromwell dislodged the Scots who then marched into England to arouse the Royalist supporters into joining a grand army with Charles at its head. But as much as the Scots resented an English invasion, the English equally scorned the Scottish adventure – this is a central point in Grainger’s argument. The English support the Scots required proved significantly reluctant to come forward, though some did, and the army became entrapped by Cromwell in Worcester. A year to the day after Dunbar, Cromwell attacked and routed the Scots again, but this time with no chance of redemption as almost none of the Scots made it home to fight again. In the meantime, Monck, left behind by Cromwell, captured Stirling and pulled off what amounted to something of a bluff with his stretched forces in capturing Scottish towns while fostering political discontent amongst the Scottish hierarchy. Grainger notes that Scottish resistance imploded under English pressure and their incessant squabbling. Their defeat was total, and they remained under the English yoke until 1660 and the Restoration of Charles II.
Grainger’s narrative is engaging and rattles along; his description of the Battle of Dunbar is particularly good. His analysis of the fractured Scottish political scene is also insightful, though he rarely lingers on any similar problems in England with just a few forays into why some in England would not fight the Scots who had backed them in the English Civil War. Grainger’s text is well-supported by maps and monochrome photographs of interesting artefacts and place, and portraits of the main players. It is unfortunate that he concludes with an appeal to the British union that is mired in antiquated thinking, but that aside, the narrative elements are well worth reading for students of warfare in the British Isles in the Early Modern Period.
August 27, 2022
I read the revised 2021 version. The main bulk of it was fine. But the political scaremongering about today's Scottish independence campaign, the insistence that independence would cause war, for example, was out of place and not worth the paper it was written on.
November 14, 2021
I want to thank Netgalley and the author for gifting me the ebook. Very informative and completely fascinating! Thank you for gifting me the ebook!
April 10, 2017
This book chronicles the last war between England and Scotland as two independent countries (prior to their union in 1707). The author downplays the Jacobite uprisings, but he has a point. The Jacobite uprisings were rebellions, not wars between two countries. And the Scots were divided during the Jacobite uprisings.
During the 1650-1652 war, Charles II landed in Scotland from his exile in Holland to be crowned as king. But Scotland was divided into several factions. The Kirk (the Scottish Presbyterian church) didn't want royalists and other factions fighting with them. They forced Charles to sign agreements pledging his support for the National Covenant. Charles reluctantly signed several agreements but he had no real intention of abiding by them. The book chronicles how the power of the Kirk was diminished to the point where they had to reluctantly consent, after key defeats, to forming a nationalist coalition to resist the English.
The Scots outnumbered the English forces. Although the Scots had capable generals, they were no match for Cromwell. The English were also better equipped and better trained. Some of the Scots formed guerilla bands who were quite effective.
This book chronicles the English campaigns in Scotland and the Scottish invasion of England, which led to the destruction of the Scottish army at the Battle of Worcester.
The author's descriptions of how the English handled the Scottish prisoners was interesting, especially after I read "White Trash" because many of the prisoners were sent to the American colonies as indentured servants. And being a member of the House of Gordon, I found the descriptions of the Marquis of Huntly's (the head of the House of Gordon) role in being one of the leaders of the resistance in northern Scotland interesting. Huntly was a royalist and a Roman Catholic.
The author's parents are Scottish but he was raised in England. His history is pretty even handed but it's clear that he admires Cromwell. There's a lot to admire about Cromwell. And I haven't seen a lot to commend Charles II (or any of the other Stuarts for that matter). Scottish history is very turbulent and very few main characters emerge unblemished.
The author makes a closing argument about needing to learn the lessons of this war in light of the rising Scottish independence movement. He thinks that splitting Scotland and England apart again is a bad idea and will inevitably lead to war. I find that argument to be unconvincing in light of the Brexit vote (which took place well after this book was written). Then again I have a soft spot for the Scottish underdogs.
Despite my problems with the author's conclusion at the end of the book (which I think detracts from the book), I recommend reading it.
During the 1650-1652 war, Charles II landed in Scotland from his exile in Holland to be crowned as king. But Scotland was divided into several factions. The Kirk (the Scottish Presbyterian church) didn't want royalists and other factions fighting with them. They forced Charles to sign agreements pledging his support for the National Covenant. Charles reluctantly signed several agreements but he had no real intention of abiding by them. The book chronicles how the power of the Kirk was diminished to the point where they had to reluctantly consent, after key defeats, to forming a nationalist coalition to resist the English.
The Scots outnumbered the English forces. Although the Scots had capable generals, they were no match for Cromwell. The English were also better equipped and better trained. Some of the Scots formed guerilla bands who were quite effective.
This book chronicles the English campaigns in Scotland and the Scottish invasion of England, which led to the destruction of the Scottish army at the Battle of Worcester.
The author's descriptions of how the English handled the Scottish prisoners was interesting, especially after I read "White Trash" because many of the prisoners were sent to the American colonies as indentured servants. And being a member of the House of Gordon, I found the descriptions of the Marquis of Huntly's (the head of the House of Gordon) role in being one of the leaders of the resistance in northern Scotland interesting. Huntly was a royalist and a Roman Catholic.
The author's parents are Scottish but he was raised in England. His history is pretty even handed but it's clear that he admires Cromwell. There's a lot to admire about Cromwell. And I haven't seen a lot to commend Charles II (or any of the other Stuarts for that matter). Scottish history is very turbulent and very few main characters emerge unblemished.
The author makes a closing argument about needing to learn the lessons of this war in light of the rising Scottish independence movement. He thinks that splitting Scotland and England apart again is a bad idea and will inevitably lead to war. I find that argument to be unconvincing in light of the Brexit vote (which took place well after this book was written). Then again I have a soft spot for the Scottish underdogs.
Despite my problems with the author's conclusion at the end of the book (which I think detracts from the book), I recommend reading it.
October 3, 2021
A good account of the war in Scotland from shortly after the execution of Charles I until Charles II had been defeated on England and the English Parliamentary forces had taken control of the major centres in Scotland.
July 29, 2015
What are often described as the English Civil Wars might more properly be described as the British civil wars (or even the British and Irish Civil Wars) or at least be seen as a subset of the Islands wide conflict. This book certainly helps return at least the later period of those conflicts to that wider context.
In particular the book provides a detailed and well-presented reminder of a significant Scottish reason why Charles II was so comprehensively defeated at Worcester in 1651. Grainger shows that Charles’ crossing into England at the head of what was, initially at least, a largely Scots army was deeply damaging to the royalist cause as he was perceived by many to be leading an invasion of England by a foreign power.
In particular the book provides a detailed and well-presented reminder of a significant Scottish reason why Charles II was so comprehensively defeated at Worcester in 1651. Grainger shows that Charles’ crossing into England at the head of what was, initially at least, a largely Scots army was deeply damaging to the royalist cause as he was perceived by many to be leading an invasion of England by a foreign power.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews