Histograophy Of Civil War Flashcards
How was England divided during the civil war on religious beliefs
Supporters of the king
-arminians
-Hyde
-culpepper
-Falkland
(They were all frightened by inconoclasm in countries)
Charles claimed to be defending church against Puritanism
Supporters of parliament -those who wanted reformation -Oliver Cromwell -Pym, haselrig and handlebars (wanted reform of church) Puritan Puritan seperists Huchington sons !!!
How was England divided during the civil war due to class divisions
Supporter of king
- most of aristocracy and gentry - personal loyalist, chief guarantor of established social order
- knights
- gentlemen’s
- poor ‘the rubble’
Supporter of Parliament
- urban and manufacturing areas
- volunteers from these social-economic groups can be found all over country but particularly from clothing areas of West Yorkshire etc
- some gentry, greatest part of the tradesmen and freeholders and the middle sort of men esp those in corporations and countries which depend on clothing and such manufacture
- middling sort - Parliament - less ridgidly hierarchy
BUT for vast majority of ordinary men and women it was other factors that those of class or rank which determined sides
How was England divided during the civil war due to geographical and regional divisions and ethnic divides
King
Support in west, north and wales, and York
Cornwall
(Parliament seen as English party so wales and Cornwall sides with king)
Cornish and Welsh troops vital for royalist war effort but ‘unenglish’ - so used troops from Ireland - who parl claim catholic
-Parl and Scots led to anti Scottish feeling - sides with king but this changed after relationship deteriorated between king and Scot
Parliament -London, SE East Anglia ! -big towns and cities Manchester -
How was England divided during the civil war due to loyalty and ambition
King
- many lords went against parliament and so did many of HOC after edgehill
- many tenants were expected or forced to follow the leadership of their lords
Parliament
Independent crafts men seemed to follow cause of Parliament
-in boroughs such as Hulk and Gloucester, the decision of whom to support was made by the governor (if there was one) and corporation —> WIDELY ACCEPTED
Certainly ordinary citizens of these towns played active part in resisting royalist attacks. This may have arises from respect for towns governing, habits of accepting their authority from genuine commitment, survival or all
How had localism divided England during civil war
17th century gentlemen belonged to county first
County community for gentry- united by blood, marriage and interest and divided by local rivalries and issues more than national concerns
While countries such as Yorkshire, Cornwall and even Kent (for all its proximity to London) had strong and daily self contained communities, others like Warwickshire was more open and diffused
In Kent, majority of gentry, moderate royalists and Parliament were reluctant to participate
Straffordshire eventually abandoned neutrality in favour of royalist as royalists were better placed to assist in preventing its disorders and preserve peace of country
How had neutralism divided England during civil war
Clarendon- more wanted neutralism
Straffordshire - justices met to declare neutrality
Lincolnshire - gentry declared they would not fight for/against king —> raised a cavalry troop ‘for the preservation of peace within themselves’
Leicester shut its gate to ‘foreigners’
This shows undivided England and fear
Neutralism - not a permanent solution
Once war began - demand of committed parties for support
Efforts at local treaties which afford protection and the attempts to organise local defence forces
How did individual/personal consideration divided England during civil war
Hotham- secured Hull and didn’t let king arm
He also opposed ship money and billeting of soldiers in Yorkshire and Charles insulted him and passed him over for appointment as governor of Hull
He became disillusioned with parliament esp when fairfaxes chosen to command Parliament forces instead of him
Oxford negotiations- blamed failure or demands of Parliament
1643- June agreed to give Hull to royalists prevented by local parl
1644 he and son executed as traitors
How do Whig historians see the cause of the civil war
Explain the civil war in terms of clash between liberty and absolutism
They see civil war as a result of a parliament struggle to prevent the king from undermining the traditional rights and freedoms of the English people
They see civil war as an inevitable event and focus on long term issues
How do Marxist historians see the causes of the civil war
Shift the focus from constitutional issues (ie away from the idea of it being a struggle between king and parliament over who should have the right to govern)
They emphasise the role of class conflict and a rising bourgeois class (middle class) who challenge the way the country is run and provoke hostilities
They see the civil war as an inevitable event and focus on long term issues
How do revisionist historians see the causes of the civil war
Challenge the idea that the civil war was inevitable because of ideological or class struggle
They emphasise the role of short-term factors such as Charles personality and the divisive effects of heir religious politicise
They often focus on the English civil war as part of a larger British perspective (ie they stress the importance of events in Scotland and Ireland)
How do post-revisionist historians see the causes of the civil war
Attempt to develop a coherent account of the origins of the civil war which makes connections between political and/or religious conflicts and longer-term social factors, usually by emphasising cultural factors
