And the minor matter of the damnation of English souls doesn't go beyond politics? Both Civil Wars were fought over the sovereign authority (being the King for the English and the federal government in the case of America) overstepping its bounds in the eyes of those who would go on to fight them (Parliament and the South). Within that overstep there were issues of economics on both sides (ship money, tonnage and poundage, etc. for the English and import/export tariffs for the Americans) and issues of a higher nature. When the King attempted to force his book of common prayer upon the Presbyterian Scots war broke out (twice). The Scots were willing to fight over religion much the same as the militant abolitionists were willing to fight in Kansas over slavery. In both cases, these events served as a prelude to the greater war. Lincoln's election made slavery a national matter and drove the south to secession. The King's dismissal of the Short Parliament, quickly followed by the issuing of a new book of common prayer by Archbishop Laud, pushed most of the moderates in Parliament into clear opposition which boiled over into war a year later after the failed attempt on the Five Members.

How so is the New Model of the Army (as it is more properly called) the first modern army? Was it a modern army in the sense of its combat effectiveness? At the most basic level the units which made it up were essentially no different from those of Manchester, Essex and Waller's armies which were dismantled to make it (excluding some of Waller's Horse that is). Fairfax was able to choose his officers ranking captain and above, but he kept most of the officers in place from the units that were folded in to the NMA (getting rid of unnecessary and ineffective officers along the way). This did increase its effectiveness, for he picked his officers well, but at the same time it did leave opportunities for favoritism open (those being the charges that he only picked the hotter sort of protestant to lead his regiments). And as far as its performance in battle? The battles of Naseby and Langport were won the same way as Marston Moor had been won prior to the creation of the new army, weight of numbers.
Is it a modern army in the sense that its leaders were divorced from politics, and thereby committed to solely military matters, by the self denying ordinance of early 1645? That could hold, except for the Army's seizure of power after the Second English Civil War and its subsequent rule until Cromwell become Lord Protector.

And on the charge of mercenaries, how does that square with General Monck becoming the commander in chief of the army after Cromwell retired back into politics? He had been a royalist general during the first civil war, but after his capture he "saw the error of his ways" and switched sides. Perhaps the 4,000 former royalist soldiers who were forced out of the army at the time of the second civil war had also "seen the error of their ways"? One could say that perhaps these men had been impressed by the royalists and that was not where their hearts had laid, yet that brings up the question, how are impressed men and different from mercenaries? Neither have their heart in the cause, they are simply their to get what can be gained (money in the case of mercenaries, their lives in the case of impressed men). The NMA continued to fill out its ranks with impressed men until the early 1650s.

And I'm spent.

No question that Ollie was a real innovator when it came to structuring his forces from the ground up. But how was it that cavalry troopers using their personal mounts not make them mercenaries? Mercenaries used their personal mounts as well. I think it has more to do with the way he structured the force into what we would recognize as modern units, with something akin to a meritocracy controlling promotions and command and control, as opposed to noble stature.

And your point about the Irish is pretty offensive and a huge, bigoted stereotype. What is your point? That Cromwell was justified in his atrocities (by 17th century standards they were atrocious, not just by 20th or 21st century standards)? That he whipped those philistines into shape? That the Irish are just bad and deserved to be slaughtered?

I found the Irish, with or without the EU to be plenty civilized and nowhere near superstition or misery. Both before and after their entry into the EU.

Although I have never read his book comparing the two civil wars, I respect Kevin Phillips - he's a thoughtful guy. But given the behavior of Cromwell and his army in Ireland, one wonders which party is the civilized one. And your statement about the Irish is not well taken.

Well put. And yes, what we Yanks would call the Scots-Irish are called Ulster-Scots in the UK and Ireland.

And that informs a lot of what Northern Ireland experienced in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s. Irish vs. Ulster-Scots.

But your point about the socio-political-cultural differences and affects in the American Civil War pretty much puts it in a class of its own.

The upper classes of antebellum Virginia were not of Ulster-Scots background and I suppose in some sense there could be some sort of comparison between them and the Cavaliers, but I think that's as far as it goes.

Your point about the Swedes is correct, but I think that the NMO had a more, uh, egalitarian structure - for lack of a better term - than any of the royalist continental forces of the 17th century. Of course once the monarchy in Britain was restored a lot of those reforms went out the window. Unqualified nobles were still running the British army in 1914 - and their tactical insufficiency had consequences.

Tom D's point about the Cavaliers and the Scots-Irish is correct, at least in terms of the populations of the Carolinas, Georgia, and the Western parts of all the coastal confederate states.

Protestant/Loyalists in Northern Ireland are called "Billy Boys" after William of Orange, AKA King Billy. The same term morphed into the American term "hillbilly" sometime in the 18th century. The cultural connection is unimpeachable. These are very tough people - they fight hard and don't like to surrender. Check the history of the 36th Ulster Division in WWI, especially at the Somme in 1916.

The connections between Ulster, the Ulster plantation of the 16 and early 17th centuries and the Southern US are manifold and complex. Many thoughtful people have pointed out that in some ways the Northern Irish "troubles" of the last 35 years are the final outliers of the 30-Years-War (300 years war?).

The upper crust of the confederacy - guys like Bobby Lee - were not from that background so there was a class/culture divide in the confederacy, as there was between the Scots Presbyterians who settled Ulster during the plantation, and the high church English who ran the show. The Ulster-Scots always (usually correctly) felt that the English used them as the tip of the spear, and deeply resent it to this day.

One way or the other, all of this was very heavily influenced by Cromwell and the restoration that came right after his death. You have hit on a very topical subject!