Controversy Shizzle Flashcards
Brian Manning
Redundant neo-Marxist historian
Richard Baxter
Contemporary Implied there was a class aspect in side taking, Parliament had 'the middle sort of men' on their side'
Also emphasized religion: ‘the generality of the people… who were called puritans … adhered to parliament’
Popery evidence ‘ ‘People … dared not go to bed, for fear lest the papists should rise and murder them’
Richard A. Fletcher
Thought it was hard to believe that many informed men were ‘pure neutrals at heart’ - instead they faced the dilemma that being true to their deepest feelings might ‘increase polarization and destroy local peace’
‘Commitment and activism were not the same thing’
People were spurred to fight by a ‘deep attachment to traditional ways in the church’
Marxist View
1930s-50s
Based on the writings of Karl Marx e.g. The Communist Manifesto 1848.
Believed the major force in history is socio-economic change and conflict - these forces will invariably lead to who revolutions: the Bourgeois Revolution and the Socialist revolution.
Examples of Marxist Historians include R.H. Tawney and Christopher Hill.
Revisionist Approach
1970s-80s
Was a reaction against the Whig explanation of history - not concerned with Marxist views as the even split of the gentry between both sides discredited this.
Rejected all forms of teleological history and the use of hindsight.
Localism, neutrality and ‘multiple kingdoms’ are three key concepts.
Examples include: Conrad Russell, Kevin Sharpe, John Morrill and M. Kishlanksy.
Whig View
19th Century
Focused on the conflict between the crown and parliament.
Used hindsight, looking at past events with the present in mind.
Explained the process from 17th century to the limited, constitutional monarchy of the 19th century. This system is regarded as ‘good’ and those who sought to prevent the progress therefore ‘bad’.
Examples include: T.B Macauley and S.R. Gardiner
Andy Wood
1997
Studied derbyshire miners: Side taking determined by short term factors and opportunism, multifaceted.
Criticized the Marxist overtones in Hughes and Underdown’s work - thought lingering socio-economic determinism was a hangover of Marxist thinking.
Hutton suggest it is difficult to draw conclusions from such individualized evidence.
Anne Huges
1980s-90s
Thought social change fed political breakdown - sought to develop previous Marxist interpretation to preserve some social links to politics.
Disputed localism, thought that the country as a basis of research was both too large for it to be concerned with local events and too large to be concerned with national ones.
Her views show a mix of tensions but do not show hoe these tensions interact to cause war. She provides a context for the war tahter than explain it. David Smith: ‘Social tensions undoubtedly fed into the civil war but did not cause it’.
John Morrill
1984
Religion was the force that motivated minorities to fight: ‘Religion forced majorities to fight and minorities to make reluctant choices’.
Puritan men were galvanized by desire to build a ‘godly commonwealth’.
Alan Hutton agreed that religion was a major factor for parliamentarians but thought royalists cared less . Parties were asymmetrical - royalists cared more for social issues or honour and loyalty to the king.
Cust and Hughes argue it is impossible to separate religion from early modern culture and society as it was ubiquitous.
Although Ian Gentles argued that: ‘Many moderates … threw in their lot with the Royalist cause out of an abhorrence of Puritan … dogmatism’
Morrill argued ‘the explosive power of English puritanism to generate a national movement ready to fight the king’
Local Studies
1970s
County issues deemed crucial - localism.
People were mostly indifferent to side taking and joined side deemed most powerful in order to speed up the [process of war - concept known as neutrality.
Examples of historians include: Everitt, Underdown, Morrill, Fletcher and Holmes.
Morrill - ‘Much parliamentarianism grew out of an experience of centralist encroachment’
Fletcher - ‘Commitment and activism were not the same thing’
Evidence For: - There were neutrality packs in 22 counties
David Underdown
1985
Ecological argument: Forrest, pasture and cloth makers tendered towards puritanism and parliamentarianism. Arable and downland areas tended towards conservative Anglicanism and royalism. Similar to Marxist reading in that economic change drives history - not a Marxist though.
Considered a great book, but ultimately disputed. Morrill pointed out that puritanism was found in both areas suggested and that arable, downland areas were not distinct.
Lawrence Stone
Summarized old Whig and Marxist views.
Neutralism - ‘Great majority of the gentry … contrived to stay neutral’. Directly disregarded Trevor-Roper’s ‘mere gentry’ theory. Heavily downplayed socio-economic factors/correlations although did not explicitly dismiss them.
Emphasized religion, ‘those who opposed the crown on ‘constitutional and political grounds … tended to swing back to the king’. Those who opposed the crown on religious grounds were more likely to fight for parliament.
Hugh Trevor-Roper
Marxist
‘Mere gentry’
R. H. Tawney
Marxist
‘Rising Gentry’
Thomas Macaulay
Whig Historian and Politician.
Put emphasis on the progression from 17th century monarchy to limited constitutional monarchy in the 19th century.
Samuel Gardiner
Whig Historian.
Emphasised progression from Charles attempt at religious uniformity in the 17th century to religious toleration in the 19th century.
Ian Gentles on Economic Determinism
‘Broadly speaking the poorer … north and west of England did support the king, while the richer … south and east aligned … with parliament.’ - ‘But allegiance was almost never undivided’
‘Fluctuating allegiance’
Ian Gentles on Religion
Greatly emphasizes religion.
Parliamentarian:
‘Religion was foundational: if parliament would only deal with the problem of popery, secondary economic and political issues would take care of themselves’. - Reflected in the fact the bulk of pamphlets and books published in 1641-42 were not about constitutional issues but about religion.
The ‘Passion and intensity’ of parliamentary commitment to religion made them win.
Fear of popery another important facet of religion. Colchester crowds evidence, they were motivated by the ‘outrageous cruelties of the rebels in Ireland’
Royalist:
Many moderates … threw in their lot with the Royalist cause out of an abhorrence of Puritan … dogmatism’
Lord Falkland
Contemporary
Commented that ‘they who hated bishops hated them worse than Satan, and that they who loved them did not love them so well as their dinner’ - Parliament’s religious zeal is what proved decisive - Ian Gentles’ argument
Protestation of 1641
Denounced ‘all popery and popish innovation’ and played a key role in associating the political side of Parliament’s cause with the religious side.
It shaped ‘a pro-parliamentary popular political culture’, heightened by the printing press and ‘circulation throughout England’ - Ian Gentles
Ian Gentles on Fear
Royalist Impact:
Prominent factor in Royalist partisanship - high profile royalists would lose their property, and their lives if Parliament won
Religious fear - Dreaded puritanism and root and branch reform
Roman Catholic justified in their ‘fear’ and flocked to the king
Parliamentarian Impact:
Also motivated by fear - men who openly defied the king/ conspired with the Scots would face execution
Fear of popery was ‘pervasive’ in England
The role of fear in parliamentary side-taking was undermined by their ‘assurance … that … God would not permit’ them to suffer
Ian Gentles on Honour
A ‘sense of honour drove many royalists on’
As King, Charles commanded unwavering loyalty of his men. This stemmed from the divine right of kingship.
New British History
Emerged in the 1980s
‘Multiple Kingdom’ - The three kingdoms ‘intertwined’ - Gaunt
Previous studies culpable of ‘anglocentrism’ - Scott responded that it was ‘inevitable’ that England would ‘exert a greater influence on Scotland and Ireland that the other way round’.
Some have criticized the British approach for ‘underplay[ing] internal divisions … between center and the provinces in England’ - Gaunt. Coward has also suggested that focus on the ‘British context’ might lead to the ‘neglect’ of the ‘European context’
Examples of historians include: John Pocock, John Morrill and Conrad Russell
Conrad Russell
Emphasizes ‘multiple kingdoms’ - in particular Scotland:
‘Billiard Ball’ analogy - John Adamson points out: ‘not all balls are of equal size or collide with equal impact’.
‘Diminished majesty’ - Scottish dissidents in 1637 gave courage in Ireland and England to criticize the king.
‘England in 1637 was a country in perfect working order’ - the financial repercussions of the seizure of Newcastle in the second Bishops’ war that caused instability
