The Controversy Flashcards
1
Q
What were some of the general reasons that people took sides in the Civil War? (8)
A
- Geographical location
- Localism
- Religion
- Social Class
- Politics
- Fear of social upheaval
- Principle
- Forced
2
Q
How did Geographical location influence side taking? (3)
A
- The proximity to Royalist/Parliamentary strongholds
- -> Proximity to London
-Protection of local industries that would be influenced by who won
3
Q
What was localism and how did it influence side taking? (3)
A
- The desire to protect the interests, property and people of a local area
- Attempted neutralism to keep locality safe
- Would join the side that offered the greatest protection and stability to the locality
4
Q
How did religion influence side taking? (2)
A
- Puritans tended to support Parliament
- Conservatives or Catholics would tend to support Charles
5
Q
Why did people try to stay neutral? (2)
A
- Feared destruction of locality
- -> wanted to protect local region
- Conservatives or undecided
- -> Those who took sides or had strong views tended to be the radical minorities
6
Q
How did social class influence side taking? (3)
A
- Landed nobles would support the King as the possession of their estates relied upon the peerage of Charles
- The Peasantry were reliant upon the traditional relationship between tenants and landlords and so would tend to support the King
- The intellectual middle class/gentry tended to support Parliament as it pushed improved their political influence
7
Q
How did political principles influence side taking? (3)
A
- Those who desired more distributed political power tended to support Parliament
- Those who feared the tyranny of Charles’ personal rule would support Parliament
- Those who desired to maintain the absolute monarchical powers of the King would support Charles
8
Q
How did fear of Social upheaval influence side taking? (4)
A
-People wanted to maintain their land and wealth and feared this would not be possible under Puritan/Republican rule
- People felt that radical Puritanism would overthrow political stability
- -> Society had witnessed enclosure riots, Grand Remonstrance, increasing censorship etc.
–> Some felt that Puritanism was more tyrannical than the monarchy of Charles
9
Q
How were people forced to take sides? (3)
A
- Some peasants were forced to align themselves with the view of their master
- Some regions were forced to take sides by incoming armies
- The governor of areas could choose the side of entire regions
10
Q
What was R.H Tawney’s view on why people took sides? and what sort of Historian was he? (3)
A
- Marxist historian
- Emphasised a class conflict between an increasingly powerful gentry and a declining aristocracy
- Saw the falling land prices in comparison to the growing power and wealth of businesses
11
Q
What was John Adamson’s (2007) view on why people took side? (4)
A
- Produced book, The Noble Revolt (2007) : That England wasn’t ready for civil war but was dragged into by a radical Puritan network who were rebelling against the aristocracy
- ->”All that was required for a civil war was two English armies”
- Morrill’s idea of a War of Religion underestimates the power of constitutional conflict
- There was sufficient opposition within England to provoke war and they were not merely following Scotland’s lead (Disagrees with Conrad Russell and NBH)
- Utilised a combination of both Marxist and Whig historical interpretations (New Historiography?)
12
Q
What was Lawrence Stone’s 1950’s view on why people took sides? (2)
A
- Saw a link between the “rising” gentry and an interest in Puritanism/support for Parliament
- -> Resultantly, claimed that the Civil War was based on class conflicts
13
Q
What was Hugh Trevor-Roper’s view on why people took sides in the Civil War? (3)
A
- Claimed that the gentry was actually in economic decline and that the Civil War was the clash between a jealous gentry and a powerful aristocracy (Christopher Thompson found that the Peerage’s real income was higher in 1602 than 1534 and grew significantly by 1641)
- Coined the term, “mere gentry” for the gentry who weren’t particularly wealthy and who faced threats over their income due to general inflation but a fall in the price of land
- Also claimed that part of the Gentry were jealous of another part of the gentry that benefitted financially from relationships and networks with courtiers and the King
14
Q
How did Hugh Trevor-Roper’s view on taking sides compare to that of R.H Tawney and Lawrence Stone?
A
- Both saw the key role of social class and the Gentry in causing the Civil War (Marxist Historians)
- Tawney and Stone initially saw the gentry as a homogenous group whereas Trevor-Roper realised there was a divide between them
15
Q
What is the clear evidence against Tawney’s, Stone’s and the Marxist Historian’s view on side taking?
A
-The Civil War cannot have been decided by a social conflict between the aristocracy and the gentry as the gentry fought on both sides (nearly a 50/50 split)
16
Q
How did Lawrence Stone’s view on why people took sides change into the 1970’s?
A
-Claimed that the gentry and social class was still significant in causing the Civil War but that the concerns of different classes rested predominantly on religion, rather than economic considerations
17
Q
What was the Whig view on the Civil War?
A
- The predominant school of historiography from the 18th century to the 1920s
- Saw the Civil War as the natural development of an increasingly liberal and representative government
- -> Saw the Civil War as an inevitability on the road to a more progressive, democratic government
18
Q
What was the Marxist view on the Civil War? (3)
A
- The predominant school of historiography from the 1920s-1970s
- Saw all history as a representation of class conflict and saw the Civil War as the Bourgeoisie revolution in England
- -> Saw the Civil War as an inevitability given the guaranteed class conflict
19
Q
What was the Revisionist view on the Civil War? (3)
A
- Was the major school of historiographical thought from the 1970’s onward
- Saw the Civil War as the result of political tensions from 1637 onwards within and throughout the Three Kingdoms
- -> Did not see the war as an inevitability but rather as a result of short term political events
20
Q
What was Perez Zagorin’s (1969) key argument in the gentry controversy? (2)
A
- You should only analyse the side taking of those who are affluent and economically independent as they have enough money to make their own decisions
- Didn’t agree with the Marxist perspective of pinpointing a single class (eg. gentry, nobility etc.) but rather grouped them as moneyed or unmoneyed classes
- -> Claimed the Marxists had made the fatal mistake of reading into the Royalist propaganda of their opponents as social inferiors
- ->Before the French Revolution and the theoretical principle borne out by Marx, revolutions simply did not exist
21
Q
What was Brian Manning’s (1976) argument in regards to the Gentry Controversy? (2)
A
- Charles’ party was the party of the elite whilst parliament was a party of the commoners
- Supported the Marxist view
22
Q
What were the main arguments against Brian Manning (1976)? (2)
A
- His Marxist view was widely discredited
- Couldn’t explain how members of each class fought for both sides
23
Q
What were David Underdown’s (1985) key arguments in relation to the Gentry Controversy? (2)
A
- Argued that the type of land you lived on would impact the side you take
- Claimed that the forests, pasture and clothmaking areas tended towards puritanism and parliamentarianism whilst arable land and downland tended towards Anglicanism and political conservatism
24
Q
Who supported David Underdown’s (1985) view on the gentry controversy?
A
-Supported by Alan Everitt, who claimed that religion and a tendency to rebel depended on the type of land you live on
25
Who disagreed with David Underdown's view over the gentry? (4)
- Buchanan studied Sommerset, where Underdown had research and found that he was wrong
- Wood contest Underdown, using evidence from Derbyshire
- Morrill studied Essex: By Underdown's theory they should have been parliamentarian but Morrill found it was actually evenly split
- Underdown had only studied 3 southern counties: unrepresentative sample
26
What was John Morrill's argument over the gentry controversy? (1984) (4)
- Claimed that religion was the primary reason as to why people took sides
- Big fan of neutralism
- His deterministic view of events corresponded with the Marxist and Whig interpretations
"The English Civil War was not the first European Revolution; it was the last of the wars of religion"
27
What support was their for Morrill's view on the Gentry Controversy? (2)
- That religion was an important factor
- Gardiner supported Morrill's view to an extent, claiming that constitutional reasons alone were not enough to cause a civil war
28
What arguments were there against Morrill's view on the Gentry Controversy? (4)
- Post Revisionists questioned how he could isolate religion from other factors
- His support for Neutralism and localism attracted criticism from Ann Hughes and Clive Holmes
- Focused on parliamentary sources rather than post revisionist local studies
- Didn't follow how religion could be the decisive factor yet different religion fought for either side
29
What was Ann Hughes' main argument in the gentry controversy? (2)
- Believed that even the lower classes held strong political views
- Believed that county borders were unimportant APART from for the gentry who held their political and economic strength from the wellbeing of their locality
30
Who supported Ann Hughes' argument on the gentry controversy? (2)
- Her localised research has been a fairly supported and repeated method of research
- People supported her ideas of viewing the importance of lowly common people rather than central parliamentarian sources
31
How did people disagree with Ann Hughes' argument on the gentry controversy?
-Contrasted with Underdown who claimed that the type of land you lived on and the locality would be a big influence on side taking
32
What was Mark Stoyle's argument on the gentry controversy?
Disagreed with localism and neutralism, claiming everyone was politically aware and held an interest in national affairs
33
When and what was the Storm over the Gentry? (2)
1951-1958
The Marxist reading of the importance of class and particularly the gentry in causing the civil war and side-taking
34
What was R.H Tawney's view on the Storm over the Gentry? (3)
- Emphasised the economic decline of the aristocracy and falling land prices and harming the nobility
- Conversely, saw the rise of the gentry who were buying land and becoming wealthier eg. Providence Island Company, Saybrook Project
- -> Saw this clash between a declining aristocracy and a rising gentry as a cause for the war
35
What was Adamson's view on the Storm over the Gentry?
Noble Revolt Theory: That England wasn't ready for a civil war but was dragged into it by a radical Puritan network
36
What Was Lawrence Stone's view on the Storm over the Gentry?
-Saw a link between the 'Rising Gentry' and an interest in Puritanism / support for parliament
37
What was Hugh Trevor Roper's view on the Storm over the Gentry? (5)
-Contradicted Tawney's, Adamson and Stone's view
--> Claimed that the Gentry were actually in economic decline
- Called this declining gentry the 'Mere Gentry' - a group reliant upon income from land which was under threat from general inflation yet a fall in land prices
- Claimed that the 'Mere Gentry' were jealous of the rising gentry (who were rising due to relationships with the court and Charles)
-->Whereas Stone, Tawney and Adamson saw the gentry as a homogenous group, Roper saw divides between the 'Mere' and 'Rising' gentry who would fight for different sides
38
How did Lawrence Stone's view on the Storm over the Gentry change?
- He revised his theory in the 1970's
- Believed that the gentry was still significant in causing the war but that it was over religion, rather than functional (economic) factors
39
What was Lawrence Stones argument on the causes of the civil war and side-taking in The Causes of the Civil War (1972) (6)
- A movement of wealth away from the church and crown towards the middle classes
- This changing socio-economic balance led to frictions between the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy (Marxist reading)
- Emphasis upon the homogenous force of the gentry
- Recognised the importance of Puritanism in uniting a gentry force within Parliament into an opposition to Charles
- 'Crisis of Confidence' in the Monarchy due to the hatred of James I, who was accused of homosexuality and vileness
- 'High Road to Civil War': Saw the Civil War as an inevitable result of the changing socio economic factors in England
40
Who were some major whig historians and what were their views? (3)
J.E Neale and Wallace Notestein
- The 'Rise of Parliament'
- -> The idea that the HOC had been growing in constitutional importance since the times of Henry VIII and sought for the Crown to provide them greater powers, causing the eventual Civil War
41
Evidence for the growing importance of the gentry in Parliament? (2)
- The House of Commons grew from 300 to 500 from the middle to late 16th Century
- Gentry component of the HOC grew from 50% to 75%
42
What was Conrad Russell's (1976) argument against teleological arguments of the Marxist and Whig historians? (3)
- Enforced the key revisionist idea not to evaluate history using hindsight but in the context of the time
- Claimed there were not two sides with which to fight a civil war before 1640 as there were not major ideological differences between the two sides
- Claimed that Parliament had no power over the King until the 1640's (evidence: between 1604 and 1629 Parliaments threatened to withhold taxes until grievances were addressed on only 4 occasions- they failed on each of these occasions)
43
How does Nicholas Tyacke (1973) argue against long term and teleological views of the Civil War? (3)
- Tyacke claims you cannot draw strict divides between Puritans and Anglicans in the Elizabethan and Jacobean periods
- -> He claims that George Abbot, Archbishop of Canterbury between 1611 and 1633 was a 'Puritan' i.e. believed in predestination, wanted rid of popish remnants of the church & concentrated on preaching rather than ceremony
-Claims you cannot use hindsight but must put into context (Supporting Conrad Russell + general revisionism)
44
What was the Revisionist view on the 'Crisis of Confidence' with James I?
Strongly disagreed with this notion, and viewed the civil war as a result of short term factors
45
What was Jenny Wormald's view (Two Kings or One 1983) on the Crisis of Confidence argument? (3)
- Claimed that the historiographical disenchantment with James I stemmed to the English loathing of the Scots, resulting in negative depictions of him
eg. Anthony Weldon, a minor royal household officer wrote a book, 'A Perfect Description' , fuelling many of the rumours about him --> 'The Wisest fool in Christendom' quote can be traced back to Weldon
-Exemplified by the contrasting view of James from Scottish Historian, Gordon Donaldson ("remarkable political ability) and English historian, Lawrence Stone ("drunken homosexual")
46
What was Kevin Sharpe's view (1983) on the causes of the Civil War and side-taking? (5)
- The Personal Rule was a period of calm and stability rather than growing tension and opposition (eg. only 2.5% of requested Ship Money didn't come in the first year of collection; each writ was issued separately and explained the need to equip the navy; Distraint of Knighthood collected £174,000)
- -> Edward Hyde, a vocal opponent of Charles recalled the PR as "a decade of calm and felicity"
-Little opposition to religious reform: letters of support or silence
- Claimed that Civil War and side taking only came as a result of events from 1637 onwards
- -> With the Hampden trial as the turning point and the Three Kingdom's issue (Scottish Rebellion) sparking the change
47
How did the Revisionist view differ from Whig and Marxist readings? (3)
- Claimed there were no long term causes (Pre 1637)
- Claimed James I was not an incompetent king
-Focused on religion, Three Kingdoms and County Community arguments
48
What was Alan Everitt's argument on the County Community in 'The English Revolution' (1968) (3)
- Claims there was a Court vs Country environment in England
- The majority of the provincial people's were more interested in living their own lives than concerning themselves with central politics
- ->Claimed there was too much focus on unrepresentative central sources from Westminster (Supports the idea of localism)
49
What was Conrad Russell's argument on ideology causing the Civil War? (5) 'Parliament and English Politics 1979'
-There were not major ideological differences between Parliament and the King but rather the divide resulted due to a functional breakdown
- This functional breakdown was due to:
- Strain between central and local gvt (eg. Book of Orders)
- Clash with King over Buckingham
- Pressures and failures of wars from 1626-1628 and 1639 onwards caused administrative stress
50
What was Conrad Russell's view on the Court vs Country debate? 'Parliament and English Politics 1979'
-Claimed the JPs certainly cared for their localities and their person before the interests of central gvt
--> Claimed debt to the ideas of Alan Everitt
51
What was Kevin Sharpe's view on the causes of the Civil War? (2)
- A functional breakdown in the localities as a result of the economic, political and administrative tension over the Bishops' War (eg. Coat & Conduct Tax)
- -> Was due to the structure of English society rather than the constitution
52
What was Nicholas Tyacke's view (1983) on religion causing the Civil War? (4)
- The truly revolutionary religious force was Arminiainism through Charles and Laud
- Arminianism acted to breakdown the strongly Calvinist religious conformity in England (eg. moving of altar rails, 1633 Declaration of Sports etc.)
- This resulted in growing persecution of Puritanism and large scale emigration of Puritans to New England
--> These 'revolutionary' changes resulted in resentment of episcopacy and a growing Puritan militancy, causing the divides in the Civil War
53
What was John Morrill's view (1984) on religion causing the Civil War? (4)
- The localist and legal-constitutionalist arguments lacked momentum to push England into Civil War
- "It was the force of religion that drove minorities to fight, and forced majorities to make reluctant choices"
- "It is almost impossible to overestimate the damage caused by the Laudians"
- "The English civil War was not the first European revolution; it was the last of the wars of religion."
54
What was Conrad Russell's argument on the cause of Civil War? (7)
- The issue of multiple kingdoms was the largest cause of instability in Early Modern history
- The major issue within these three kingdoms was they were all religiously independent and internally divided
- -> Hence, the attempts at religious uniformity created a number of issues amongst them
- -> The trouble caused in one kingdom would spark further issues elsewhere
- Saw 'The Problem of Diminished Majesty' amongst the Three Kingdoms in that people were gaining courage to criticise the King
- Saw Scotland as the key instigator in causing the troubles amongst the three kingdoms
- He, and many historians from the 1980's onwards, saw the incompetency of Charles as a key factor in causing Civil War- "I find Civil War without him impossible to imagine"
55
What was Derek Hirst's opinion on the cause of the Civil War (1985)? (2)
- That Charles I was the "most inept of all English kings" and was principally at fault for the Civil War
- "Foolish to underestimate the part played by his personality"
56
What was Ann Hughes' argument on localism and court vs country (1991)? (3)
- Disagreed with the Court vs Country and Localism arguments, claiming that England had a "highly integrated and centralised political system"
(eg. one common law and one national body that voted on taxation for the whole kingdom)
- Only the Gentry were impacted by localism as they had political and economic interests in their counties
- -> Generally, even the localities were interested in central political issues
57
What was Johann Sommerville's view on why people took sides (1989)? (2)
- Deeply rooted ideological issues eg.
- Argument between divine right of Kings and Social Contract theory, especially when applied to extra parliamentary taxation
58
What was Richard Cust's argument on why people took sides (1987)?
-Similar to Sommerville's argument:
Conflict between Charles' desire to maintain authority and the rest of the country's desire to limit the King's prerogative (eg. Forced Loan, Ship Money etc)
59
What was Ann Hughes' and Richard Custs' argument on religion?
- Claim that Puritanism was not inherently opposed to monarchy but the failings of Charles' I encouraged this united opposition
- Agree with Morrill that religion was an important factor but "do not share the tendency to see religion as a phenomenon hermetically sealed from other aspects of life"
60
What was the opposition to the billeting of troops?
Campaigns and petitions in Yorkshire, Durham and Northumberland in 1642
61
Evidence for side taking out of traditional loyalty for the King (2)
Many of the gentleman and knights supported Charles except where the King and his army never went eg. Cambridgeshire, Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex etc.
-When the King arrived in these places, people felt a natural sense of loyalty towards him (Obvious counter arguments eg. Hotham)
62
Evidence that the Gentry were split between Parliament and Royalists (3)
- Approximately 4000 Gentry on each side
- In Suffolk, Norfolk, Cambridgeshire and Essex, the majority of the peasantry supported Parliament but the Gentry were ill-disposed towards them
- In Yorkshire, of the gentry families in financial decay, 3/4 who took a side, sided with the King (Opposes Stone + Tawney's idea of the rising gentry as well!)
63
Evidence of individuals impacting side taking?
Derby- full of gentry and nobility- swayed towards the Royalists but Sir John Gell, with the help of freeholders and yeomen, made a party that resisted them and supported Parliament
64
Evidence of side taking as an extension of long term loyalties/disputes? (2)
In Kent, the major parliamentarian supporters, like the Sandyses of Northbourne Abbey, had a history of opposition towards the Monarchy- having suffered at the hands of James I and Charles I
Conversely, in Kent, the Cavaliers belonged to families with a long history of loyalty to the crown eg. Great Peers, such as Duke of Richmond and knights like St.Legers of Boughton Monchelsea
65
Evidence against localism?
In Kent, the Sayndyses of Northbourne Abbey (Parliament) and the Duke of Richmond (Royalist) had only recently moved to Kent and derived large amounts of their income from sources other than the land
66
Evidence for Neutralism? (3)
- 22 Neutrality treaties amongst counties + Treaty of Bunbury Dec 1642
- 10 Counties never formally accepted or declined the Commissions of Array
- In Yorkshire, 240 out of the 680 gentry never committed themselves to either side
- Fear of the ruin in Germany (30 years war)- 70% under poverty line
- Agrarian unrest 1640-1642 reinforced desire for peace
67
Evidence for religion impacting side taking?
-In Yorkshire, 1/3 of Royalist army were Catholic and 1/2 of Parliamentary army were Puritan
68
Evidence for Localism? (4)
- In Staffordshire, the gentry rose a force tasked with keeping away outsiders
- Towns like Leicester shut their gates
- Throughout the course of 1645, Clubmen Associations were formed in 9 counties --> Each association numbered between 10-20k men
- In Devon, there was a tactical alliance with Fairfax because Goring (the current occupier) was a bigger threat to provincial liberties than the NMA at that time
- Everywhere in the West people switched their allegiances to Fairfax in 1645-1646, when they saw that his army held out the best chance of ending the war
69
Evidence against neutralism? (4)
- Of the 40,000 men in trained bands units for parliament, 2/3 were volunteers
- West Riding provided an army made up of 8000 volunteers for Fairfax
- Goldsmith, Richard Bennet imprisoned for speaking scandalous words about parliament and Pym
- Simon Seagar, Miner, accused of sedition for discussing the treachery of the king
-Ann Hughes had noted signs of royalism amongst the common people in Warwick in 1642, despite the political dominance of the Puritan Lord Brooke
70
Evidence of religious grievances for Royalists/Anti-Puritan factions? (2)
- In Norwich at Shrovetide 1642, a crowd of 500 wielding muskets, swords and pistols rallied to defend the Cathedral's organ against Puritan iconoclasts who would've destroyed it
- Judith Maltby found petitions from 22 English and 6 Welsh counties defending the Book of Common Prayer and Episcopacy
71
Evidence of economic interests in side taking (3)
- Derbyshire lead miners provided several hundred volunteers for his army only after receiving support against a struggle with local landowners
- City Merchants in particular seemed wary to not take sides as it would impact their normal economic activities
- Between 1639-1642, London was strongly Parliamentary- refusing to lend money to the Crown for the Bishops' War and refusing to enlist in Royalist armies --> After being taxed £11,000/w in assessment, support dried with large scale peace demonstrations in August 1643 and volunteers completely dried up- the 2nd weekly assessment of July 1643 had to miss London
72
Evidence in support of Hutton's claim of religion only affecting Parliament? (2)
Lord Falkland said, "they who hated bishops hated them worse than the devil, and they who loved them did not love them so well as their dinner"
-Nearly 500 banners for the field and regimental officers have survived: Of the Parliamentary ones, 72% make reference to religion, compared to 50% for the Royalists
73
Evidence of religious grievances for Parliament? (4)
- Parliamentary crowds in their thousands invaded and plundered the houses of the landed classes- with the exception of one prominent royalist family (The Lucases) all those attacked were suspected of being Roman Catholics
- Multiple acts of popular iconoclasm- attacks on the houses of catholics by Clothworkers in Essex and Suffolk and sailors on the East Coast
- Many supported Parliament for a desire for a Godly Commonwealth- Preacher, Stephen Marshall repeated his godly sermon, 'Meroz Cursed', over 60 times to different elements or the Parliamentary army throughout the course of the Civil War
- Preaching under the patronage of Lord Brooke produced a 'high state of Godly excitement', resulting in hundreds of volunteers for Brooke's army
74
Evidence of fear of social disorder as a factor for side taking? (5)
- Many of the major royalist supporters, such as Worcester, Newcastle, Ormond and Derby knew they would lose their land, property and lives --> Fate of Strafford hung in minds
- Morrill claimed, "Fear of disorder drove some men into royalism; it drove far more into neutralism"
- Grand Remonstrance Nov 1641 marked the creation of a Royalist Party as this was the point when many realised Pym was going too far
- Enclosure riots & popular iconoclasm factored into thoughts
- Fear of Germany in Thirty Years' War- over 70% under poverty line
75
Evidence of side taking forced upon others?
In Hull and Gloucester, side taking decisions were made by the Governor and was widely accepted
76
What is New British History? (2)
- A view of history focusing on the interrelationship between the British isles and seeing them the civil war as a single common process amongst the three
- -> For example, championing Conrad Russell's Three Kingdom's argument and his Billiard Ball analogy
77
What are the arguments against New British History? (2)
- Arguments that each of Russell's Billiard balls were of different sizes and hit each other with different impacts
- -> Must look at ulterior factors in pushing towards Civil War also
-Morrill claims that Russell lets "The Scottish tail wag the English dog" and sees events within England more important than Scottish or Irish triggers
78
Evidence in support of New British History? (5)
- The Irish rebellion of October 1641 was partially in response to the aggressive expansion of the Scottish Covenanters and led to growing political fears and tensions within England
- -> Strafford enforced the 'Black Oath', according to which Scots in Ireland was forced to renounce the Covenant
- An Irish Remonstrance provided sufficient ammunition against Strafford for an impeachment from the English Long Parliament
- English Triennial Act appears to be modelled on the Scottish Triennial provision of 1640
- Scottish prayer book rebellion and Bishops' War of 1637 onwards were followed by trouble in England
- -> As the Scots crossed the border, leading English dissidents presented Charles with the Petition of Twelve Peers, requesting that he summon a parliament
79
Evidence against New British History? (3)
- Each of the Kingdoms were fighting for a different religion (Scotland for Presbyterianism, Ireland for Catholicism and Parliament for religious toleration) and political motivations
- The wars in each kingdom took place at different times at were markedly different, with different outcomes also
- Before 1707, Britain did not exist and there is no evidence in any of the Kingdoms that anyone felt British
80
How large was Strafford's Irish army?
- 8000 infantry
| - 1000 horse
81
What was Jonathan Scott's (2000) view on causes for the Civil War and side taking? (2)
- Contemporaries were far more aware of European contexts for the Civil War (eg. popery, 30 years' war etc) than a British context --> Between 1590 and 1690, the geographical reach of protestantism shrunk from 1/2 of Europe to 1/5
- This was emphasised throughout the 17th Century- with not only the Civil War but also The Exclusion Crisis (1678-81) and the Glorious Revolution (1688-9) - all of which held underlying fears in the context of European Catholic Monarchical forms eg. absolutist power and standing armies
- Contrasting fears of Popish conspiracy to destroy Puritanism and Popular conspiracy to undermine monarchy
-Believed that Laudianism was actually a form of 'popery' in that it was going against the reformation, rather than in the more exact definitions of Catholicism
82
What are some of the Long Term changes a whig or Marxist historian could draw upon?
- 'Price Revolution' : Gradual inflation from early 16th Century to mid 17th Century
- Population growth: London grew from 55,000-400,000 between 1520-1650
- The number of students entering the two universities and inns of courts peaked in the 1620's and 1630's until the late 18th Century
