Would you fight for Roundheads or Cavaliers?

They were Parliamentarians of course, what else?

Roundheads because they absolutely skullfucked Cavaliers, and then probably impregnated their wives with Roundheaded children.

Roundheads because Charles I seemed like an utter faggot.

Satanists
Rebels
Traitors

Those apply to the Royalists though, trying to force Absolute Monarchy.

Being a cavalier then switching sides, later when Cromwell dies you're sitting in Scotland with an army and march to London installing Charles II

Roundhead. I would swing the axe that killed Charles if I could.

Disgusting. Parliamentarians should be burned.

>Banning Christmas

Cromwell was a faggot.

I would have either fought with the Roundheads, or emigrated to America.

Considering the secular clusterfuck it has become, I think he was in the right.

Farewell Papist, you will not be missed

>>christards killing other christards in some stupid internecine conflict christards had become infamous for.
Neither. I would find someplace to hold up in with a bunch of sluts and plenty of food and booze and wait it out.

it was a war about the authority of the crown you utter cock gobbler

Yes and? Are you denying that both sides were tedious christards fighting over which particular brand of christfaggotry should be favored by that crown? Sure, they had secular concerns as well, everyone does. But I see no reason why that invalidates what I said.

It invalidates what you said because the war was fought over the authority of the crown, if you want to look for a religious war in Britain look at the revolution of 1688. So yes, it does invalidate what you are saying, I'm not even Christian and I acknowledge that

what?
the ECW wasn't a religious war

It invalidates what you said because the war was fought over the authority of the crown,
Yes and both sides were christards who wanted their particular favor of christardery to be favored by that crown. So it doesn't actually invalidate what I said at all. No it wasn't an entirely religious conflict, but at this point in history the secular state was not yet a thing, so all wars had some sort of religious motivation.

>This is your brain on republicanism

>He doesn't know

ECW was 100% a religious war because religion and authority were interrelated.

This is unironically the best course of action, literally just move to the American colonies. Give it a few years and it will be a good life

Don't comment on something if you have no idea what you're talking about

my town declared for parliament so i would probably have ended up with the roundheads.

Fuck off Monck
Grenadiers>Coldstream

Bump

As a Regicide myself I think you know my answer.

I know precisely what I'm talking about. And I have no real interest in fighting the army of christard A or the army of christard B.

>brainlets arguing over cavaliers vs roundheads

the real debate is levellers or ranters

Why are you obsessed with Jews? It's not like Protestants treated Catholics in Scotland and Ireland terribly well.

I’m a royalist through and through, but Mad Charlie made no good decisions after marrying that daffy Spanish bitch.

>Pro-Stephen vs Pro-Plantagenet
>Pro-Angevin forces vs The Army of God and Holy Church
>Royal forces vs Baronial forces
>Royalists vs Marcher Lords
>Lancaster vs York
>Royalists vs Parliamentarians
Wtf is wrong with Bongs?
Also the English Civil War is better than the American Civil War in every way, not enough dead Irish in the US Civil War.

And in regard to OP, Parliamentarians.

cavalier
>documented banter
>preferred duels
>drinking and singing
>top lads
Round heads
>no drinking or singing
>banter is a punishable offence
>afrade to duel
>hates fun

Rounds

cucks

Even as a bong I disagree
The American civil war was utterly brutal and in my opinion the true first “great war”
It was really a war to show that yanks were not to be fucked with

>what is the seven years' war

Yes and no. The American Civil War has been considered the first "Modern War" because it was the first major conflict to make extensive use of railroads, the telegraph, and other various new technologies. It was brutal, it was violent, but in terms of casualties and overall violence it was certainly not the first.

What about the crimean war?

Cavaliers. Cromwell was a mass murdering tyrant and destroyed countless priceless artifacts. He wanted to destroy Britain's history both so the only thing Britons would remember would be his rule.

Well I would have fought for the rightful King of Great Britain and Ireland, Charles Edward Stuart, in 1745, so I would fight for his great grandfather and namesake against the filthy genocidal puritan.

It wasn't as such then though

But the vast majority in England at the time were Christian you utter melt

This is edgy fucking reasoning my dude
>IF BOTH PARTICIPANTS IN A WAR HAPPENED TO BE RELIGIOUS THEN IT IS A RELIGIOUS WAR INFA: 100%

fuck off

pshh.... nothin personell, papist

roundheads all the way. despite being Anglican and a committed monarchist.

>The American civil war was utterly brutal and in my opinion the true first “great war”
>what is the 30 years war
>what is the 7 years war
>what is the crimean war
>the absolute state of the british islands

That is a very weird gun...

>war starts because scottish subjects refuse laudian innovations to their prayer book and its forcible placement in scottish churches.
>scotts revolt against the king and set up their own theocracy (the kirk)
>parliamentarians of whom many are puritans are suspicious that charles is secretly making england catholic through laudian innovations and using a privately financed standing army to crush any political resistance
>charles gets btfo by the scots with initial forces
>parliament refuses to raise money for charles to impose laudianism on scotland
>charles: ok lol I'll raise an army in ireland
>catholic ireland
>charles: I totally won't use my newly raised papist standing army to defeat the scots and then establish papal rule in england through coercion
>puritan mps chimp out and raise their own army, all the while dissolve the church of england and set up an assembly of clergy to reconstruct the church of england according to more godly principles. indecision leads to infighting among members, some of whom are puritans, some of who just hate charles for his alleged tyrannical rule and don't want to many church reforms. church of england eventually banished outright in 1646.
>meanwhile, parliament starts to btfo charles in civil war. scots capture charles and turn him over to the english
>alliance with scots turns sour, in large part because the scots want to impose the kirk (presbyterian) model on England and the church council in england is divided on the subject. many are not for the kirk model. add to this national prejudices against each other.
>charles makes a deal with the scots that they can keep their church after all, but only if they put him back on the throne. scots turn on the parliamentarians. scots get btfo, thereby ending the civil war
>meanwhile, abolition of the church hierarchy and religious discipline leads to crazy protestants sects
>puritan convictions lead to cromwell's decision to execute Charles
>catholic ireland attacked

He's quite clearly an American. And we were in all those wars, retard.

>So all wars had some sort of religious motivation
Kill yourself moron