Civil War Flashcards
What was the Whig argument about Civil War?
How about the Marxists, revisionists, and post-revisionists?
What was Court vs Country?
Whigs: believed it was due to pressures between Crown and Parliament since Henry VIII’s 1530s reformation Parliament.
Marxists: war of rising gentry with Pym’s junto against declining aristocracy.
Revisionists: post-1637 actions, civil war was not inevitable, and religion did have a role in side-taking. Post-revisionists have studied locals, interested in ideology.
Many post-revisionists looked at issues of James I and his royal prerogative, and Richard Cust described how the forced loan created, ‘basic principles,’ as people declared where they stood in relation.
Court vs Country: many people were involved in politics, concerned over the Popish plot, monopolies such as the Fenland drainage and Popish soap, and court privilege. Historians such as Richard Cust argue gentry were more focused on local issues.
What types of royalists were there?
Royalists:
Cavaliers – support Charles first, ie- Prince Rupert.
Constitutionals – supported Monarchy but not always Charles.
Parliamentarians had concern over King’s violation of their liberties.
What did Tawney and Stone argue about gentry rising?
Tawney and Stone, Marxists, argued that as the gentry rose, this was associated with Puritanism and Parliament support. Trevor-Roper argued that the gentry was declining, Oliver Cromwell was ‘mere gentry,’ and this caused ECW but saw religion connections.
What did Manning argue about socio-economics?
How about Underdown across the country, in Somerset, Wiltshire, and Dorset?
Why did Zagorin criticise Marxists?
Socio-economic explanation:
Manning – elites against middling sort and peasants, Parliamentarians.
Underdown studied Somerset, Wiltshire, and Dorset and found ecological/sociological connections, as while those in arable/downland areas supported Charles, those in cheese-pasture-cloth-wood making areas supported Parliament.
Zagorin has condemned Marxists as they took Royalist propaganda of low Parliamentarian status at face value, arguing war was within political elite, (Court v County view).
How did the socio-economic historians change their arguments?
Stone later decided religion was more significant.
Tawney argued that the war was ‘bourgeois,’ but on both sides, but Cromwell only managed to make a living through his talents as military commander.
Manning’s views of conflict before the Civil War have been argued by historians such as Sharpe, who argued there was little unrest.
Underdown’s arguments were defiled by Andy Wood, who studied Derbyshire miners as they lived near pasture, but were royalist due to short-term motives.
Zagorin extended his comparison of the court v country beyond the Three Kingdoms to include Spain, France, Netherlands, and Italy, which was far too broad. He had to flee US as he was accused of being a communist. He dismissed masses of having concept of revolt.
Localism: what did Alan Everitt find to differentiate localism from neutralism? What did Ann Hughes find about borders and commmittment?
What did Andy Wood find about miners?
Alan Everitt differentiated localism from neutralism with studies on the County Community of Kent where they believed in self government and had minorities of activists.
Ann Hughes in Warwickshire found that the boundaries had no meaning for those politically engaged, and gentry often married beyond the county border.
Andy Wood’s study on Derbyshire miners found them to take the best deal, and often had clashes with royalists over land.
What self awareness was found by Alan Everitt?
How was Parliament seen?
Alan Everitt found Kent had ‘provincial self awareness,’ attributing neutrality to gentry and how they married in localities to maintain character, supported by Anthony Fletcher’s study of Sussex, finding the county to be politically engaged but with neutral gentry determined to maintain self government.
He found a tradition of conservatism and neutralism across counties.
Parliament was seen to tax heavily, had a disruptive army until 1645, and took more livestock. Ann Hughes, studying Warwickshire, found links between the disparate community with a lack of business, and lawyer professionals, and those involved in trade and agriculture moving beyond the border.
Neutralism?
What sides were there to it?
What did Mark Stoyle find in Devon?
What did John Morrill find, and where did Woolrych find clubmen?
Kept communities out of war.
Passive – side with occupier.
Aggressive – form third army clubmen who would fight occupiers in guerrilla style and sign neutrality pacts.
Neutralism rose after Edgehill Oct 1642, but was unsustainable. Mark Stoyle’s work in Devon undermined neutralism, showing men to have secret partisan motives.
John Morrill found 22/38 counties neutral, and Austin Woolrych identified Clubmen in Lincolnshire, Cheshire, and Staffordshire. Alongside this, in Parliamentarian heartlands Cambridgeshire, Suffolk, Essex, and Norfolk.
Neutralism was found at the top with Sir William Waller, parliamentary general, and his best friend Sir Ralph Hopton, Royalist general, both sending letters unenthusiastically about this ‘war without an enemy.’
What were John Morrill’s arguments about religion and Civil War?
John Morrill:
It was the last of the wars of religion, (1984).
It is impossible to overestimate Laudian damage.’
There were no constitutional militants.
Religion drove minorities to fight and majorities to make reluctant choices.
In 2008 he claimed there were wars of religion as much as any other war, all about many things except religion.
What did Ronald Hutton argue about religion?
Ronald Hutton – may be right about Parliamentarians with godliness, but evidence does not support royalists who exhibited nothing like the same religious zeal.
Ann Hughes and Richard Cust welcomes emphasis of ideological reasons but criticised vision of religion as sealed from other life aspects.
