>The English civil war has just begun
>You are a minor nobleman
>Will you declare for Charles the 1st and back the royalist cause?
>Or will you take up arms against your King and back Cromwell and the other parliamentarians.
>Roundhead or Cavalier
What do /his/?
>>1065855
Roundhead of course
>>1065905
>Not backing your rightful king
Wew
>choice between absolute monarchy and religious theocracy
No thanks. I'm off to the New World.
i keep my head down
im a good farmer i dindu nuffin
but seriously i run away if i can
>>1065855
Well if I knew the future I'd back Cromwell, otherwise it would depend which side my friends, family, vassals and overlords back.
>>1066046
>Arrives on the shores of the New World
>Scalped by natives
>Or killed for being a dirty Englishman and most likely protestant by Spaniards
Nice one
>>1066079
I'd look at this along the lines of it being literally that point in history with the future being undecided, choices/events could play out differently etc. In order to remove any bias etc.
>>1065855
Probably Charles. Monarchs generally want to keep the nobility on their side, and I hear there was an anti-alcohol movement under Cromwell.
When's the last time one of these rebellions ever succeeded? I'll stick with the King. Besides, Prince Rupert has a magic dog.
depends
as a minor noble im more likely to be a conservative rather than revolutionary, so by that logic im likely a royalist. today, i have been raised as a conservative, and im to the mind that my personality is more to keep the status quo rather than create the new thing.
then again, what events have led to this? even as a conservative, if i was a British North American in the 1760/70s, there'd be plenty to push for a more revolutionary mindset.
what events preceded this war?
>>1067207
Poodles are based dogs, magic or not.
Roundheads of course, fuck charles
Parliament.
But kill Cromwell.
>>1065855
>implying
Declare neutrality and find a way to profit off the winner.
I'm an aristocrat, not a soldier.
>>1065855
While the English fight each other, I take the opportunity to Make Scotland Great Again.
>>1066046
>the colonies were all theocracies of protestant weirdos.
also OP, Levellers
>>1069651
There's records of people trying that and getting shot immediately.
>>1065855
> Cromwell
Who the fuck would support this nobody autist?
I'm backing my rightful King. Deu et mon droit.
>>1069708
Cromwell was just a cavalry captain at the time. The Parliamentarian Chief Commander was Robert Devereux Earl of Essex, a literal cuckold.
>>1069703
Hey man, all part of the game.
>>1065855
Parliament all the way, Taxes can only be approved by Parliament, I ain't paying shit for that jackass the duke of Strafford. Hook up with my nigga Fairfax and wreck James 1, the stubborn oaf, who could have avoided all this shit and keep his head if he was willing to make ONE compromise.
>>1069708
So you'd back an angry manlet over the elected representitives of the country?
>>1069750
> he thinks the civil war was about democracy
wat
>>1069762
Didnt answer my question. It was due to personal rule and the thorough.
>>1069766
Parliament wasn't elected by the country and Cromwell didn't care much what they had to say anyway, he purged anyone who didn't agree with him and wouldn't allow them to vote.
Cromwell was a dictator.
Of course Charles was a dictator as well but he was also the King and therefore more legitimate and more likely to have the entire country's best interests at heart.
>>1069750
> elected representitives of the country
elected by less than 3% of the adult male population and all the elections were openly bought off anyway
>>1065855
>backing a dirty, warty peasant
Fuck that.
GOD SAVE THE KING
>>1069784
>>1069788
It was elected based on the counties and larger towns. It wasnt a universal electorate, but it was still better than nothing. In some places you only had to be able to boil water to vote.
Cromwell was a douche no doubt, perhaps worse than even charles, wentworth and laud. However, I would back pym over charles any day, even if he was a little extreme.
Charles was a deluded manlet who attempted to crush his enemies and nothing else. For instance, much of his religious policy was guided to crush his puritan enemies. Look at what happened to prynne, burton and bastwick.
>>1069797
> In some places you only had to be able to boil water to vote.
bullshit
> However, I would back pym over charles any day, even if he was a little extreme.
Who wouldn't back their ancient monarch? edgy cucks, that's who
> Charles was a deluded manlet who attempted to crush his enemies and nothing else.
98% of all those that complain about manlets on the internet are manlets
Puritanism has no place on this bejeweled isle, high church or go home
>>1069805
Not bullshit, google it. It was called pot walloper.
Who would back an edgy manlet?
Im 6 foot, charles was like 5 3
Get fucked laudianist scum
LONG LIVE THE KING!
>>1069815
>Not knowing that people were much shorter in the past
>wew lad
>>1069825
>they were shorter back then
> king who gets tons of exercise and eats like a king is still a manlet
Once a manlet always a manlet
>>1065855
My family sided with the king, I'd not want to disappoint them.
>>1065855
I'd be a leveller
>>1069762
Have you never heard of the Putney debates?
>>1070272
The levellers really were ahead of their time, that offshoot they had that were "the diggers" are a hilarious footnote in history though
>>1070284
Yeah I agree, the diggers were like the 17th century hippy
>>1065855
They had a better sense of fashion back then.. pic semi unrelated
Dunno, I might flee to a Catholic country. If not, I'd be a Leveller.
>>1069670
This guy knows where it's at
>>1065855
I'm Catholic, so cavalier of course.
>>1069749
>>1069641
>>1069629
>>1070272
>>1070284
>>1070551
>mfw you spot the traitorous scum
>>1070556
Except the cavaliers were laudian, not catholic
