The English Civil War

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Over on the 'Citizenship ceremonies in the UK. Do we really need this? thread Dave B reckons the UK has never had a decent revolutions. In fact it had one of the first modern revolutions in the Form of the English Civil War. It's a terrible fact that the ECW is hardly taught in schools in favour of other nation shaping events like WW2 and is poorly understood when arguably it had a bigger ahping effect on Britain and on world history.

You cannot understand the American Revolutionary war without understanding that, initally at least it was round 3 of the ECW. Taxation without consent was the spark that ignited both and indeed the american colonists were in large part decended from dissafected puritans who formed the bulk of the parliamentary armies and who felt that they had been betrayed by the commonwealth and protectorate.

It also marks the period when the first socialist, anrachist, libertarian and syndicalist style movements take hold and the begining of the end for absolutism world wide, (although the Lollards and Magna Carta give certain Medieaval starting points for both of these)

Anyway, we have never really discussed it here.

Ed (dali), Thursday, 20 January 2005 13:57 (twenty-one years ago)

...why do you start these threads when I'm at a web cafe...

Masonic Boom-Boom (kate), Thursday, 20 January 2005 13:59 (twenty-one years ago)

Also, this reminds me that I need to finish "The World Turned Upside Down" which is about lots of the mad sects floating around about the time of the ECW.

Is it really not taught in English schools? I find that shocking.

Masonic Boom-Boom (kate), Thursday, 20 January 2005 14:02 (twenty-one years ago)

I got taught the American revolutionary War and the early middle ages (saxons up to Edward 3)

Ed (dali), Thursday, 20 January 2005 14:07 (twenty-one years ago)

i was taught nothing about America, and only some brief touching on Roundheads vs Cavaliers when i was 10. i can't remember what GCSE History entailed prior to the final two years when it was all WW1 and 2 with a bit of Russian Revolution thrown in.

Stevem On X (blueski), Thursday, 20 January 2005 14:09 (twenty-one years ago)

I think that a great deal of the ECW gets a bit whitewashed in English culture. Almost like they're slightly ashamed of it, and would like to write it off as an aberration. Culturally, they make a great deal more of the Restoration (and the associated accomplishments in science and architecture and art).

Masonic Boom-Boom (kate), Thursday, 20 January 2005 14:10 (twenty-one years ago)

Dave said we never had a 'decent' revolution, and that might be fair. I.e., to open old wounds, we never had a 'classical' bourgeois revolution 'along French lines'. You can argue the toss over what constitutes proper, but I tend to the olden Perry Anderson-Tom Nairn line that the archaism of the present state (a fairly glaring fact in itself) is intimately related to the compact the English bourgeoisie acheived with the landed elite in 1832-4 6.

Miles Finch, Thursday, 20 January 2005 14:10 (twenty-one years ago)

carping aside though, Ed is totally OTM -- the ECW (or British? It did start cos of the use of Scots troops in Ireland...) is shamefully absent from the curriculum. most people don't know it exists.

Miles Finch, Thursday, 20 January 2005 14:14 (twenty-one years ago)

I think that the excesses of the ECW kind of override the political accomplishments. Plus, the stench of religious extremism which accompanies it. The lesson learned is that you cut off the head of the King, only to get an even worse tyrant in the form of a religious fundamentalist.

Masonic Boom-Boom (kate), Thursday, 20 January 2005 14:15 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm sure we did about it at school.

There is a Richard Harris film.

There are loads of books, both factual and fictional.

Some people called The Sealed Knot Society regularly re-enact battles; I suspect most of them are teachers.

I have been to, I think, Cromwell's schoolhouse (a museum in Huntingdon). Perhaps it wasn't his schoolhouse. I have aslo seen the house what where he lived in Ely.

The King who got his block chopped off stopped to see his children for the last time at the Maidenhead branch of NatWest. They have a plaque up outside.

Anyway, 'o' level history (which I didn't do) is all modern stuff like Bismarkie, I don't know about 'a' level.

Peter Stringbender (PJ Miller), Thursday, 20 January 2005 14:27 (twenty-one years ago)

I think there are about three films in total on the civil war: 'Cromwell' w. Richard Harris, 'To Kill A King' w. Tim Roth, and best of all 'Winstanley' by Kevin Brownlow. It's an amazing film about the crazy xtian communists in 'The World Turned Upside Down', whose author Chistopher Hill was an adviser on the shoot.

Miles Finch, Thursday, 20 January 2005 14:30 (twenty-one years ago)

So next time you get annoyed with the King you chase him out of the country and install a Dutchman in his place instead. Hurrah!

English Civil War is a bit of a misleading name, yes. 'First British Revolution' has better ring to it (second being 1688 and third being that nasty business in North America).

RickyT (RickyT), Thursday, 20 January 2005 14:31 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes, what about the Glorious Revolution? Where does that fit in? I don't quite understand it.

Masonic Boom-Boom (kate), Thursday, 20 January 2005 14:33 (twenty-one years ago)

We learned nothing about the ECW and very little on the Glorious Revolution in American high school history : ( But we spent ages talking about the Holy Roman Empire and then the war of two popes.

jocelyn (Jocelyn), Thursday, 20 January 2005 14:34 (twenty-one years ago)

It's not really as significant as 1640-2, but I guess the period 1688-1714 is important because it sorted of revealed how much the monarch of the 1660 Restoration was *really* pwned on all fronts by parliament.

Miles Finch, Thursday, 20 January 2005 14:35 (twenty-one years ago)

There is a Richard Harris film.

it is not a very good film. Not merely does it feature the following as the first lines of dialogue:

"I fear the King means war"

"What? A Civil war?"

it also adopts a ridiculously ahistorical view of Cromwell's motivations. Cromwell as an advocate of "democracy"? I think not.

DV (dirtyvicar), Thursday, 20 January 2005 14:39 (twenty-one years ago)

It's also worth remembering that the period saw separate but linked civil wars in Ireland and Scotland, with both of these being the occasional motors of events in England.

DV (dirtyvicar), Thursday, 20 January 2005 14:40 (twenty-one years ago)

Glorious Revolution: Parliament invites very protestant William (57th in line to the throne) of Orange to come over and deal with suspicious James II and his catholic wife. Although they don't explicitly ask him to be king at first they decide it would be a jolly good idea to make him king once he's been in Britain for a bit and the streets of London are full of dutch troops.

Ed (dali), Thursday, 20 January 2005 16:09 (twenty-one years ago)

And they marry him off to Protestant Mary, James II's daughter, in order to make it legitimate and all.

jocelyn (Jocelyn), Thursday, 20 January 2005 16:11 (twenty-one years ago)

The Cousins' Wars by Kevin Phillips

I highly recommend this book.

The ECW should not be known as such since it was largely sparked by fear of 'papist' Irish armies being brought over by the Earl of Stafford and hinged, until Cromwell finally defeated them, on the position of the Scots. My ex-stepfather, who was a history professor, caught me reading Christopher Hill's 'Century of Revolution' and referred to him as "that communist".

Michael White (Hereward), Thursday, 20 January 2005 16:34 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm inclined to think that one of the reasons Britain still has a monarchy stems from the failure of the dour, fun-hating Commonwealth and the blatant tyranny of the Protectorate.

Michael White (Hereward), Thursday, 20 January 2005 16:37 (twenty-one years ago)

'Glorious'

The fact that this piss-poor knig deposing and wanky statutory settlement with parliament tells you all you need to know.

ECW - it might have had revolutionary potential, but the upshot was that it wasn't revolutionary by the end - the King came back. By decent, I mean a revolution that achieves the expulsion of hereditary, aristocratic interests from the political firmament as basic starting point (Monarchy, Peerage etc) and achieves land reform.

Dave B (daveb), Thursday, 20 January 2005 16:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Hill was indeed a Communist (until 1956) but his books on the Civil War are amazing.

Miles Finch, Thursday, 20 January 2005 16:46 (twenty-one years ago)

The King came back in France too, Dave!

RickyT (RickyT), Thursday, 20 January 2005 16:49 (twenty-one years ago)

And then went away again because he was rubbish!

William was already married to Mary btw xpost up above.

Liz :x (Liz :x), Thursday, 20 January 2005 16:51 (twenty-one years ago)

xpost - France - the King came back, but ended up working in the chip shop of history

Dave B (daveb), Thursday, 20 January 2005 16:52 (twenty-one years ago)

Ditto England though -- the monarchy hasn't held power since teh Glorious Revolution, or maybe 1745ish.

Miles Finch, Thursday, 20 January 2005 16:53 (twenty-one years ago)

They had *some* power though, even up until the end of the 19th century.

RickyT (RickyT), Thursday, 20 January 2005 16:59 (twenty-one years ago)

They still do have power - patronage, privy council and royal assent. Ok it's a remote possibility but a king or queen with the opinions of John McCririck could wreak havoc. (Try saying "John McCririck could wreak havoc" with a mouth full of jelly babies)

beanz (beanz), Thursday, 20 January 2005 17:12 (twenty-one years ago)

One of my locals is a pub where Charles II sought refuge when fleeing the Battle of Worcester in 1651. That's an amazing fact.

David Merryweather (DavidM), Thursday, 20 January 2005 17:15 (twenty-one years ago)

Is that the Swan with Two Nicks or something on New St?

Colonel Poo (Colonel Poo), Thursday, 20 January 2005 17:16 (twenty-one years ago)

But you forget that the powers of Monarch exist; it's just that they're exercised by the Prime Minister.

Dave B (daveb), Thursday, 20 January 2005 17:52 (twenty-one years ago)

xpost - France - the King came back, but ended up working in the chip shop of history

Actually, the French monarchy committed suicide. Henri, Comte de Chambord (Charles X's grandson) was offered the throne by the leaders of the National Assembly in the early 1870's after the Franco-Prussian War, the abdication of Napoleon III, and the Commune, but he had one insurmountable condition, that the Assembly renounce the drapeau tricolore in favor of the white Bourbon flag, which, in light of three revolutions since 1789, they could not do.

Michael White (Hereward), Thursday, 20 January 2005 18:00 (twenty-one years ago)

And they marry him off to Protestant Mary, James II's daughter, in order to make it legitimate and all.

he was already married to her.

DV (dirtyvicar), Thursday, 20 January 2005 19:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes. As Liz pointed out above. ;)

Michael White (Hereward), Thursday, 20 January 2005 19:08 (twenty-one years ago)

sorry Liz.

I'm inclined to think that one of the reasons Britain still has a monarchy stems from the failure of the dour, fun-hating Commonwealth and the blatant tyranny of the Protectorate.

the fun-hatingness of the Commonwealth was greatly exaggerated in retrospect by the degenerate counter-revolutionaries who surrounded Charles II.

The blatant tyranny of the Protectorate... well, blatant despotism I'll give you, but it was probably no worse than the personal rule of King Charles.

DV (dirtyvicar), Thursday, 20 January 2005 19:10 (twenty-one years ago)

What's the connection between Worcester and the oak leaves the Chelsea Pensioneers wear? Is it just 'cause Chuck Deux founded the place?

DV, I'll take corrupt fornicators who re-open the theaters anyday over people who ban Christmas and I think your anti-monarchism has has unduly colored your comparison of living under Ollie or Chuck.

Michael White (Hereward), Thursday, 20 January 2005 19:18 (twenty-one years ago)

Cromwell backed down from puritanical tyranny as implemented by his Major Generals when he feared it precipitate a second round of fighting between episcopalian and more puritanical view points. Nevertheless Cromwell was effectively King and set the template for a constitutional Prime Minister and moreover exiled or executed radical leaders, some even personal friends, in the name of preserving the kingdom, (with the added motive of preserving the power of the gentry).

Ed (dali), Thursday, 20 January 2005 19:20 (twenty-one years ago)

THE NWRA
[lyrics/music: Mark E. Smith]

When it happened we walked through all the estates, from
Manchester right to, er, Newcastle. In Darlington, helped a large
man on his own chase off some kids who were chucking bricks and
stuff through his flat window. She had a way with people like that.
Thanked us and we moved on.

'Junior Choice' played one morning. The song was 'English
Scheme.' Mine. They'd changed it with a grand piano and turned
it into a love song. How they did it I don't know. DJs had
worsened since the rising. Elaborating on nothing in praise of
the track with words they could hardly pronounce, in telephone
voices.

I was mad, and laughed at the same time. The West German
government had brought over large yellow trains on Teeside docks.
In Edinburgh. I stayed on my own for a few days, wandering about
in the, er, pissing rain, before the Queen Mother hit town.

I'm Joe Totale
The yet unborn son
The North will rise again
The North will rise again
Not in 10,000 years
Too many people cower to criminals
And government crap
The estates stick up like stacks
The North will rise again X4
Look where you are
Look where you are
The future death of my father

Shift!

Tony was a business friend
Of RT XVIII
And was an opportunist man
Come, come hear my story
How he set out to corrupt and destroy
This future Rising

The business friend came round today
With teeth clenched, he grabbed my neck
I threw him to the ground
His blue shirt stained red
The north will rise again.
He said you are mistaken, friend
I kicked him out of the home

Too many people cower to criminals
And that government pap
When all it takes is hard slap

But out the window burned the roads
There were men with bees on sticks
The fall had made them sick
A man with butterflies on his face
His brother threw acid in his face
His tatoos were screwed
The streets of Soho did reverberate
With drunken Highland men
Revenge for Culloden dead
The North had rose again
But it would turn out wrong
The North will rise again

So R. Totale dwells underground
Away from sickly grind
With ostrich head-dress
Face a mess, covered in feathers
Orange-red with blue-black lines
That draped down to his chest
Body are a tentacle mess
And light blue plant-heads
TV showed Sam Chippendale
No conception of what he'd made
The Arndale had been razed
Shop staff knocked off their ladders
Security guards hung from moving escalators

And now that is said
Tony seized the control
He built his base in Edinburgh
Had on his hotel wall
A hooded friar on a tractor
He took a bluey and he called Totale
Who said, "the North has rose again"
But it will turn out wrong

When I was in cabaret
I vowed to defend
All of the English clergy
Though they have done wrong
And the fall has begun
This has got out of hand
I will go for foreign aid
But he Tony, laughed down the phone
Said "Totale go back to bed"
The North has rose today
And you can stuff your aid!
And you can stuff your aid!

gygax! (gygax!), Thursday, 20 January 2005 19:25 (twenty-one years ago)

Some of which were useful innovations. Kings, traditionally, have to respect inherited conventions, and Charles I's greatest sin, most likely, was to have tried to rule without Parliament for so long. Ironically, that's what Cromwell did too, in essence. The GR establishes the monarch in parliament as the essence of the English state and I seem to remember reading a letter by Geo III (to Lord North?) in which his hard line with the Americans was justified by his not wishing to see the absolute authority of Parliament in legislative matters diluted or challenged.

xpost

Michael White (Hereward), Thursday, 20 January 2005 19:29 (twenty-one years ago)

I was wondering how long folk songs would take to appear, if it's going to be folk songs.

These are my favorites:

They call me the upstart monstrous lawyer
A mere legend of lies,
And I can pretend it was worth the war
If I cover up my eyes
And I walk in blindness, 'cross the stones
And down to Traitors Gate.
Here we go again, it's still the same
ENGLAND'S NEW CHAINS

I've been the willing soldier
And I've fought the bloody years
And I can pretend it was worth the war
If I cover up my ears
And I walk in silence, 'cross the stones
And down to Traitors Gate.
Here we go again, it's still the same
ENGLAND'S NEW CHAINS

Only time will tell who survives the fire
Only time will tell why we've been fighting all this while

I am the Free-born Englishman
I am any mother's son
I can pretend it was worth the war
If I cut out my tongue
And I walk in silence, 'cross the stones
And down to Traitors Gate.
Here we go again, it's still the same
ENGLAND'S NEW CHAINS

By Rev Hammer, inspired by John lilburne's Pamphlet of the same name http://www.constitution.org/lev/eng_lev_10.htm

The World Turned Upside-Down

In 1649 to St. George's Hill
A ragged band they called the Diggers came to show the people's will
They defied the landlords, they defied the laws
They were the dispossessed reclaiming what was theirs

We come in peace, they said, to dig and sow
We come to work the lands in common and make the waste ground grow
This earth divided we will make whole
So it may be a common treasury for all

The sin of property we do disdain
No man has any right to buy or sell the earth for private gain
By theft and murder they took the land
Now everywhere the walls spring up at their command

They make the laws to chain us well
The clergy dazzle us with heaven, or they damn us into hell
We will not worship the God they serve,
a God of greed who feeds the rich while poor folk starve

We work and eat together, we need no swords
We will not bow to masters, nor pay rent to the lords
Still we are free, though we are poor
Ye Diggers all, stand up for glory, stand up now!

From the men of property the orders came
They sent the hired men and troopers to wipe out the Diggers' claim
Tear down their cottages, destroy their corn
They were dispersed - only the vision lingers on

Ye poor take courage, ye rich take care
This earth was made a common treasury for everyone to share
All things in common, all people one
They came in peace - the order came to cut them down

Words and music © Leon Rosselson, 1975

Ed (dali), Thursday, 20 January 2005 19:34 (twenty-one years ago)

World Turned Upside Down
The text of this ballad is drawn from the Thomason Tracts (669. f. 10 (47)), where it is dated 8 April 1646. In it, the author decries the passing of all the favorite English Christmas traditions which he feels were killed at the Battle of Naseby in 1645.


The World Turned Upside Down
To the Tune of, When the King enioys his own again.
Listen to me and you shall hear, news hath not been this thousand year:
Since Herod, Caesar, and many more, you never heard the like before.
Holy-dayes are despis'd, new fashions are devis'd.
Old Christmas is kickt out of Town.
Yet let's be content, and the times lament, you see the world turn'd upside down.

The wise men did rejoyce to see our Savior Christs Nativity:
The Angels did good tidings bring, the Sheepheards did rejoyce and sing.
Let all honest men, take example by them.
Why should we from good Laws be bound?
Yet let's be content, &c.

Command is given, we must obey, and quite forget old Christmas day:
Kill a thousand men, or a Town regain, we will give thanks and praise amain.
The wine pot shall clinke, we will feast and drinke.
And then strange motions will abound.
Yet let's be content, &c.

Our Lords and Knights, and Gentry too, doe mean old fashions to forgoe:
They set a porter at the gate, that none must enter in thereat.
They count it a sin, when poor people come in.
Hospitality it selfe is drown'd.
Yet let's be content, &c.

The serving men doe sit and whine, and thinke it long ere dinner time:
The Butler's still out of the way, or else my Lady keeps the key,
The poor old cook, in the larder doth look,
Where is no goodnesse to be found,
Yet let's be content, &c.

To conclude, I'le tell you news that's right, Christmas was kil'd at Naseby fight:
Charity was slain at that same time, Jack Tell troth too, a friend of mine,
Likewise then did die, rost beef and shred pie,
Pig, Goose and Capon no quarter found.
Yet let's be content, and the times lament, you see the world turn'd upside down.

Michael White (Hereward), Thursday, 20 January 2005 19:37 (twenty-one years ago)

xpost- Just to back up comments upthread about Christopher Hill, I think the Marxist politics of the historians who have written most extensively/eloquently on the ECW is directly related to its low profile in curriculums- accusations of teaching class warfare get thrown around, or, more troublingly (because harder to disavow) is the simple assertion that these are "engaged" texts by interested parties.

Drew Daniel (Drew Daniel), Friday, 21 January 2005 00:05 (twenty-one years ago)

There's a good deal of post-Marxian history of the ECW that's been done. Much of it begins with a refusal to call it such. Even though they have a tendency to a certain kind of economic determinacy reductionism, many Marxist histories are useful, if for no other reason, than they tend to put forth the best argument for economic determination of events, which seems so often the best explanation.

Michael White (Hereward), Friday, 21 January 2005 00:11 (twenty-one years ago)

many marxist concepts are totally common these days, i think the real reason for the ECW being low in profile in school curricula is that it's bloody hard! it involves some of the most difficult intricacies of economic history as well as needing a good grounding in religious controversies. on top of that it induced one of the richest cultural eras in englisgh literature.

Miles Finch, Friday, 21 January 2005 09:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Please discuss Cornet George Joyce, cross-dressing executioner extraordinaire, murdered in my home village (they say) when the fornicating theatre-goers returned.

Peter Stringbender (PJ Miller), Friday, 21 January 2005 10:26 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1395390,00.html

speaking of fun-hating...

Miles Finch, Friday, 21 January 2005 10:41 (twenty-one years ago)

Dammit, now I remember why I didn't get through The World Turned Upside Down the first time. It goes into very technical treatment of philosophical, political and religious beliefs of various splinter groups and factions, while speeding over the very major framework of the English Civil War because "As any FULE know..." all about Cromwell vs. The Levellers etc. already. When actually, erm, I don't know much about any of it. I think I actually know more about the Glorious Revolution than about the Civil War because my family disapproved immensely of the Glorious Revolution and spent most of the 18th Century trying to get the Stuarts back in.

Masonic Boom-Boom (kate), Friday, 21 January 2005 11:15 (twenty-one years ago)

Not sure what's the best general narrative of the ECW. Hill wrote lots about it, but no 'straight narrative'. Maybe 'Century of Revolution' comes close. His 'The English Revolution 1640' is ultra-Marxist but again requires previous knowledge. 'Puritanism and Revolution' is grebt.

Miles Finch, Friday, 21 January 2005 11:26 (twenty-one years ago)

CV Wedgewood's "The King's Peace" and "The King's War" rock hard as narrative history (which is what you want), but they only go up to the end of the first Civil War. I think her descriptions of some of the battles might be a bit off too.

I remember liking that Kenyon fellow's book about the whole period.

Can anyone recommend a book that covers the Commonwealth, Protectorate, & Restoration?

DV (dirtyvicar), Friday, 21 January 2005 17:59 (twenty-one years ago)

Has anybody read Clarendon?

Michael White (Hereward), Friday, 21 January 2005 18:12 (twenty-one years ago)

two weeks pass...
Rason why ECW isn't taught in schools = David Starkey's recent "The Monarchy" series.

Masked Gazza, Thursday, 10 February 2005 03:42 (twenty-one years ago)

can someone email me a reading list of religous and social movements, as well as general history of this sort of thing ?

anthony, Thursday, 10 February 2005 04:24 (twenty-one years ago)

There is a christopher hill book on the subject but it's name escapes me, I'll look it up when I get to work.

http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/sitemap.htm

A useful site wit a good selection of biographies and a good glossary.

Ed (dali), Thursday, 10 February 2005 07:00 (twenty-one years ago)

wow, there's a *two-hour-long* ting about teh civil warz on channel 4 tonight. hiveminding or what?

Miles Finch, Thursday, 10 February 2005 10:18 (twenty-one years ago)

as dave b well knows - bcz i already told him! - the UK had no less than THREE revolutions = 1640-60(ish), 1688 and 1776-87(ish)

(actually the tudor reformation is also a proto-revolution)

the last one wz disavowed as "ours" bcz it wz "merely" regional

the c.hill book abt religious and social movements = "the world turned upside down" -> wd, don't you HAVE MY COPY OF THIS BOOK??

the prob w.the nairn-anderson thesis is that it is v.pedantic and formalistic abt what constitutes a "proper" revolution (eg is it the bit which lasts a coupla years or is it the century-long run-up to it that makes its occurence - and outcome - inevitable)

mark s (mark s), Thursday, 10 February 2005 12:03 (twenty-one years ago)

wd = ed obv

mark s (mark s), Thursday, 10 February 2005 12:04 (twenty-one years ago)

I do, and have done for some time, I must return them all, sorry.

Ed (dali), Thursday, 10 February 2005 12:06 (twenty-one years ago)

ps i found that bunch of missing pages from the cromwell book! (we can pretend i tore them out in a rage and flung them down behind a bookcase)

mark s (mark s), Thursday, 10 February 2005 12:08 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes that rather stopped me from finishing the cromwell book, the missing bit appears to be related to the early civil war battles.

Ed (dali), Thursday, 10 February 2005 12:31 (twenty-one years ago)

more to the point it has the PICTURES!!

mark s (mark s), Thursday, 10 February 2005 12:34 (twenty-one years ago)

Has anybody read Clarendon?

no... it goes on forever and is biased, but in an overt and therefore handleable way?

when did he write it anyway? After being sacked by Cockfarmer II, or before?

Did anyone see that To Kill A King film? The trailer looked great but it never made the cinemas here.

DV (dirtyvicar), Thursday, 10 February 2005 18:27 (twenty-one years ago)

Also, has anyone read Antonia Fraser's "Cromwell - Our Chief Of Men"? I think I might like it.

DV (dirtyvicar), Thursday, 10 February 2005 18:29 (twenty-one years ago)

After, I believe, DV. I've been told his prose is actually quite readable for a 17th century gent.

Michael White (Hereward), Thursday, 10 February 2005 18:31 (twenty-one years ago)

dv that is the cromwell book ed and i are discussing

he has 11/12ths of it, the rest is still at my house

it's OK, but her grasp of politics is nearly zero

mark s (mark s), Thursday, 10 February 2005 18:31 (twenty-one years ago)

oooh.

I have heard that AF's problem is that she can only write hagiography, so she just goes overboard on whoever she writes about, no matter who they are.

DV (dirtyvicar), Thursday, 10 February 2005 18:41 (twenty-one years ago)

I agree about the hagiography. She doesn't seem to be able to put distance between her subjects and herself.

Michael White (Hereward), Thursday, 10 February 2005 20:16 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm just watching the first documentary in Channel 4's Civil War season, and the only thing on my mind at the moment is that it has the same narrator as BBC2's Auschwitz, The Nazis And The Final Solution. It's a bit offputting.

caitlin (caitlin), Thursday, 10 February 2005 21:07 (twenty-one years ago)

ken burns: "the english civil war"

latebloomer (latebloomer), Thursday, 10 February 2005 21:09 (twenty-one years ago)

Wait, are you accusing me of having your copy of The World Turned Upside Down? No! It's MINE! I bought it in the Blackheath Oxfam and I still have the receipt to prove it (as I'm using it as the bookmark.) OK, I did have your history of Satan for several years, but Ricky T has that now, don't look at me.

I have to admit that I was vaguely disappointed with the documentary last night. OK, I know they were trying to do it from this whole "look, eyewitness accounts, how the *people* experienced it" and all angle, but it just felt like they left out too much of the actual story. No mention of the Short Parliament or the Long Parliament - and no mention either of the Scottish revolt which made Charles draw up an army in the first place.

Though some angles were quite interesting - I, for one, did not know that some of the "American" colonists came back to the UK to fight. The way that is represented in American history is that the Puritans went off and founded Massachusetts and never looked back. It was interesting to see the cross-polination in that way.

Kate Kept Me Alive! (kate), Friday, 11 February 2005 11:41 (twenty-one years ago)

That sounds crazy! Not to be all narrow-mindedly curricular n'shit, but that's mad emphases. I'm amazed it was two hours long, though, of a Thursday too.

Miles Finch, Friday, 11 February 2005 11:44 (twenty-one years ago)

no ed has my WTTU (i think)

it's v.hard to keep this in mind, but america was still part of "england" until 1776, far-flung geographically but close in lots of other ways

cromwell and one of the other revolutionaries very VERY nearly emigrated across the atlantic in the late 1630s

also relevant: during the golden age of piracy - 1680s-1720s - the east coast ports in america were significant havens for piratical skulkage AND the political settlement on-board pirate ships = little nations of masterless men (and women), where the captain was in CONSTITUTIONAL CONTRACT w.his crew

these same ports of course supplied much (not all) of the revolutionary ideology that fired the third english revolution (=american war of independence)

mark s (mark s), Friday, 11 February 2005 11:48 (twenty-one years ago)

one of the reasons you have so many towns named easton on the east coast was that my realtive Peter Easton ravaged the coasts

anthony, Friday, 11 February 2005 11:53 (twenty-one years ago)

and no mention either of the Scottish revolt which made Charles draw up an army in the first place.

They did mention that Charles recalled Parliament in order to raise an army because of problems with revolts in Scotland and ?Wales? (might not have been Wales, I can't remember).

I missed the second half off this but a friends kindly recorded it for me so I'll catch it over the weekend.

Also on Channel 4:
Cromwell
Sunday 13 February, 7.30pm

As England was plunged into civil war, from the turmoil one man emerged a hero: Oliver Cromwell. He rose from fenland farmer to become the most powerful commoner in British history, and he got there by very un-British means: revolution. His convictions led to the killing of a king, and gave Britain its only experience of republican rule.

However, there's more to Oliver Cromwell than the grim-faced Puritan of legend. This film, originally shown in 2001, reveals a troubled and contradictory man who dominated England as it underwent cataclysmic change in the bloodiest war fought on English soil.

The Trial of the King Killers
Sunday 17 February, 9pm

On 29 January 1649, the English Civil War reached a dramatic and bloody climax: 59 Members of Parliament signed Charles I's death warrant. The next day the king was publicly beheaded. and for the first and only time in its history, England became a republic.

When Oliver Cromwell died in 1658, the republic died with him. Two years later, when Charles's son was restored to the throne as Charles II, anyone who had signed the warrant or had assisted in its creation became a marked man. Quite a few fled abroad. Arrested and charged with the crime of regicide, the remainder were put on trial. The gripping exchanges that emerged as they argued for their lives in court reveal the very different motives of the group of men who reached the decision to kill the king.

Taken from the original trial transcripts, Trial of the King Killers is a fact-based drama with a cast led by Corin Redgrave. It tells the bloody story of the most revolutionary episode in all of English history, when a king was brought before a people's court accused of war crimes, and of what happened to his executioners when the wheel of history turned again and they were called to account for their actions.

Onimo (GerryNemo), Friday, 11 February 2005 11:59 (twenty-one years ago)

Mark -- I'm really interested in this idea of the American Revolution being phase three in the English revolution, or the third English revolution, but I'm not feeling it -- can you fill us in?
I can't see how 1776 caused much of a radical change in England or the English constitution like the first two, because I don't see that it was part of England, any more than the Indian toeholds at that time were. I can dimly remember how much the American revolution shaped the big crisis of the late 18C: the Warren Hastings affair, but onyl dimly -- iirc it was about Burke successfully rebuking imperial overreach in Bengal on the basis of the American experience.

Miles Finch, Friday, 11 February 2005 12:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Wales? (might not have been Wales, I can't remember).

Ireland.

Onimo (GerryNemo), Friday, 11 February 2005 12:06 (twenty-one years ago)

I thought the claim that the American Revolution (War of Independence, whatever) was the third wave of English Civil War was a bit off base. But maybe that's because I learned it from an Americanocentric point of view. Sure, in many ways the Colonists were descended, literally and philosophically, from the Puritans and Parlimentarians, but it seems like a shoot, a side-effect, a parallel development, rather than part of the same stream.

x-post - yes, they mentioned the Irish uprisings. They did not mention the Scots, which were far more urgent and key.

Kate Kept Me Alive! (kate), Friday, 11 February 2005 12:10 (twenty-one years ago)

That said, I liked the way that they concentrated so on that Puritan lady who single-handedly held off the entire Royalist army. I suppose she was quite unique because they had her entire correspondance as firsthand documentation.

I will probably miss the one on Saturday (anyone taping it?) but I'm much more interested in the Trial of the King Killers anyway. Cromwell seemed a bit like the original Fun Hater anyway.

(I loved the way they talked about the Puritans banning Xmas, and they saying "Suddenly, the Royalists were the official party of Fun!" It would be hillarious if the Torys tried to pull the same sort of stunt.)

Kate Kept Me Alive! (kate), Friday, 11 February 2005 12:16 (twenty-one years ago)

10 minutes on the Net and I realise I know next to nothing about the English Civil War :-(

Onimo (GerryNemo), Friday, 11 February 2005 12:16 (twenty-one years ago)

(I loved the way they talked about the Puritans banning Xmas, and they saying "Suddenly, the Royalists were the official party of Fun!" It would be hillarious if the Torys tried to pull the same sort of stunt.)

I now have a vision of Michael Howard shouting "DO YOU HATE FUN?!!?!?" at Tony Blair during PM'sQT.

aldo_cowpat (aldo_cowpat), Friday, 11 February 2005 12:18 (twenty-one years ago)

The more I learn about the ECW the more I realise how little I learn. But it's fascinating and endless and has so many different possible interpretations on all sides...

x-post - that would actually be hysterical. But I suppose the current DO YOU HATE FUN?!?!? of conservatism (little c) is actually using Political Correctness as a stick to beat the Left with.

Kate Kept Me Alive! (kate), Friday, 11 February 2005 12:22 (twenty-one years ago)

miles i have to go to work now (haha=can't post while i'm on the bus), but a minimal version of the change in english politics from the 1780s = the radicals all went to america so the pressure on the (eg anti-monarchical/anti-aristocratic) constitution, from the radical end, lessened as a result

(the poster-child for this migration = tom paine)

two books which are good on it (both abt american war of independence and the roots of the US constition) = garry wills's "inventing america: jefferson's declaration of independence" and "explaining america: the federalist"

one of the things he does in these is trace eg jefferson's and madison's thinking back to the writings of the "scottish enlightenment" ppl, esp. hume and another less famous guy whose name i forget, and their interpretations of the constitutional implications of the 1688 "Glorious Revolution" (inc.i think the implication that the GR was not over, or fully realised)

something also worth remembering is that something like one in ten* of the english population died as a direct or indirect result of the English Civil War, so that the desire for STABILITY and relative peace after the 1640s hung huge over England for many decades, in the form of an unconscious fear of a return to war (actually i'd argue this fear is still with us, deep in the brit cultural subconscious)

*(i remember this from some recent TV prog abt the Civil War and may be misremembering this figure: it was LARGE though - i assume as much as anything courtesy refugee dislocation, disease and starvation)

mark s (mark s), Friday, 11 February 2005 12:33 (twenty-one years ago)

i think the "side-effect" feeling of US independence for us, here*, now, is a by-product of its success as a revolution

*here = in the US *and* the UK

until c.1775 many - if not most - of the americans who took up arms against the Brits considered themselves loyal subjects of King George III; their compaint was that the colonies didn't have the same rights as "true-born englishmen" and this is what they originally felt themselves to be fighting for

but the fact of the war led to a radicalisation of the position, in effect realising the radical implications of the english constitution as ALREADY established (in unfinished form) in 1688

mark s (mark s), Friday, 11 February 2005 12:38 (twenty-one years ago)

aargh bus!!

mark s (mark s), Friday, 11 February 2005 12:38 (twenty-one years ago)

cheers!

Miles Finch, Friday, 11 February 2005 12:40 (twenty-one years ago)

i remember this from some recent TV prog abt the Civil War and may be misremembering this figure: it was LARGE though

Factoid from last night's documentary: the death toll as a percentage of the population was higher than the First World War.

caitlin (caitlin), Friday, 11 February 2005 12:43 (twenty-one years ago)

I was starting to wish I'd been able to see the programme, but if it was just another 'Cromwell banned CHRISTMAS! MEANIE!' doodad then I don't have to be too fussed. Yes yes there were Roundheads and Cavaliers and Roundheads hate fun but are plucky whereas Cavaliers are free-and-easy-do-as-you-pleasy gallant gentlemen blah blah Children Of The New Forestcakes. It's just... the most basic textbook will point out that the rule of the Major Generals (when DANCING is BANNED o no) was little more autocratic than the CharlesI-Laud axis in the 1630s, but it's so much more satisfying for pop-history to be able to repeat the usual 1066-and-all-thatisms, Bad Man Cromwell and Charming But Profligate Charles II and all that.

Which is to say: Cromwell was not a 'puritan' fun-hater. He was an experimental calvinist, possibly aligned to the Seeker sect, who loved art and nice clothes and who, as he became older, realised that in order to keep stability he had to clamp down more on the craziness that was an England rife with millenarianism, sometimes overstepping the mark as in 1655. Etcetera.

cis (cis), Friday, 11 February 2005 12:49 (twenty-one years ago)

Most reports put the war related deaths somewhere between 250,000 and 350,000 (depending on whether you include the Scottish and Irish casualties) - I don't know what the population was estimated to be at the time but the British population was in the low millions up until the last 200 years so 1 in 10 is probably a fair estimate.

Onimo (GerryNemo), Friday, 11 February 2005 12:55 (twenty-one years ago)

Personally, I thought that one of the interesting angles at least in the first part of the documentary was the way it looked at the appearance of the media. The build-up to the Civil War was, it said, the first time that people were faced with political pamphleteering and journalism; and they automatically believed that anything they read was true.

caitlin (caitlin), Friday, 11 February 2005 12:57 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes, I did think that was interesting, too. I mean, think about a world where the only thing you've ever read is The Bible, and you're taught that that is the Word Of God, and therefore true. Even today, there are people who believe that every single thing printed in a newspaper means that it must be true. It must have been so much more powerful back when print was such a new phenomenon and so intimately tied with The Bible.

Kate Kept Me Alive! (kate), Friday, 11 February 2005 13:01 (twenty-one years ago)

And one of the great things about The World Turned Upside Down is to realise that although some 17th Century Radicals were actually perfectly sensible and precursors of liberal ideas we take for granted, lots of them were actually total nutjobs with very wooly pseudo-religious beliefs. And if a bit of Cromwell's Fun-Hating actually did something to control the very scary Mob, that might not have been such of a bad thing.

That said, they should bring back the Smithfield Mystery Plays.

Kate Kept Me Alive! (kate), Friday, 11 February 2005 13:08 (twenty-one years ago)

I remember being told that in the Elizabethan era, people who owned books usually had two: the Bible and Foxe's book Of Martyrs. Both of which were, of course, considered truth.

cis (cis), Friday, 11 February 2005 13:12 (twenty-one years ago)

the passion plays were fascinating, because they were one of the first democratazations of religion, were common folks could both interupt and claim religous works for themselves, and also queer the text in really subversive ways.

anthony, Friday, 11 February 2005 13:27 (twenty-one years ago)

one of christopher hill's key argts was that mass literacy => social revolution

(i have actual real work to do at work »:( so postin will be light till late afternoon)

mark s (mark s), Friday, 11 February 2005 13:41 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/HISwilliamsbook.JPG

http://www.sharpsbooks.co.uk/images/S7863.jpg

Miles Finch, Friday, 11 February 2005 13:45 (twenty-one years ago)

'one of christopher hill's key argts was that mass literacy => social revolution'

I think this is key, not only mass literacy but the punishments for pubishing radical literature were less severe in Briatin than i Europe. John Lillburne was sentanced to be whipped on the back of a cart dragged from the fleet prison to New Palace Yard but in Europe he would probably have been burnt at the stake. And of course there were much less sophisticated method of uncovering seditious pamphleteers etc. (i.e no inquisition)

Ed (dali), Friday, 11 February 2005 14:23 (twenty-one years ago)

Spoken:
The most interesting thing about King Charles I is that he was 5'6'' tall at the start of his reign, but only 4'8'' tall at the end of it because of..

Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector of England
Puritan
Born in 1599 and died in 1658
September
Was at first
Only
MP for Huntington
But then
He left the Ironside Cavalry at Marston Moor in 1644 and won
Then he founded the new model army
And praise be, beat the Cavaliers at Naisby
And the King fled up North, like a bat to the Scots.

Spoken:
But under the terms of John Pimm's solomn league and covenant, the Scots handed King Charles I over to..

Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector of England
And his warts
Born in 1599 and died in 1658
September
But alas
Oy vey!
Disagreement then broke out
Between
The Presbyterian Parliament and the Military who meant
To have an independent bent.
And so..

The second Civil War broke out
And the Roundhead ranks
Faced the Cavaliers at
Preston banks
And the King lost again, silly thing
Stupid git

Spoken:
And Cromwell sent Colonel Pride
to purge the House of Commons of
the Presbyterian Royalists, leaving
behind only the rump Parliament..

Which appointed a High Court at
Westminster Hall
To indict Charles I for.. tyranny
OOOHHH!
Charles was sentenced to death
Even though he refused to accept
That the court had.. jurisdiction
Say goodbye to head head.

Poor King Charles laid his head on the block
January 1649
Down came the axe, and..

Spoken:
In the silence that followed, the only sound that could be heard was a solitary giggle, from..

Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector of England
Olé
Born in 1599 and died in 1658
September
Then he smashed
Ireland
Set up the Commonwealth
And more
He crushed the Scots at Worcester
And beat the Dutch at sea
In 1653 and then
He dissolved the rump Parliament
And with Lambert's consent
Wrote the instrument of
Government
Under which Oliver was Protector
at last
The end.

Girolamo Savonarola, Friday, 11 February 2005 14:27 (twenty-one years ago)

"punishments for pubishing radical literature were less severe in Brtain than in Europe" = bcz it suited henry viii at key times to foster
i. the educated middleclasses (eg thomas cromwell and parilament vs the wars-of-the-roses-lovin "barons" etc)
ii. religious quasi-radicals (he went from harassing translators of the bible to sponsoring them)
iii. a general sense that culture wz a "good thing": like his daughter elizabeth he wz well-read and smart, and liked ppl to know this and admire him for it

mark s (mark s), Friday, 11 February 2005 14:38 (twenty-one years ago)

here is a pre-US election freaky trigger post abt the sociological roots in the English civil war of the AMERICAN civil war (= the FOURTH english revolution haha)

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/blogphotos/Blog_Map_Slavery.gif

mark s (mark s), Friday, 11 February 2005 15:17 (twenty-one years ago)

(sorry that map requires the info on the FT post to make sense of its ECW relevance)

mark s (mark s), Friday, 11 February 2005 15:19 (twenty-one years ago)

ps the scottish-enlightenment guy upthread whose name i forgot = FRANCIS HUTCHESON

mark s (mark s), Friday, 11 February 2005 16:14 (twenty-one years ago)

I think mark's (and the map's point) is that congregationalists/puritans from East Anglia and Methodists and mostly Lutheran Germans settled the North (representing the Roundhead tradition) and English Episcopalians, Scots-Irish Presbyterians (representing the Cavaliers) and Baptists who were wary of both traditions, settled the South. It's worthy to note that much of California and the West was originally dominated (though not entirely) culturally and economically by New Englanders rather than Southerners.

Michael White (Hereward), Friday, 11 February 2005 16:26 (twenty-one years ago)

here is my FT post in full:
"According to Fischer, the foundation of American culture was formed from four mass emigrations from four different regions of Britain by four different socio-religious groups. New England's constitutional period occurred between 1629 and 1640 when Puritans, most from East Anglia, settled there. The next mass migration was of southern English cavaliers and their servants to the Chesapeake Bay region between 1640 and 1675. Then, between 1675 and 1725 thousands of Quakers, led by William Penn settled the Delaware Valley. Finally, English, Scots, and Irish from the borderlands settled in Appalachia between 1717 and 1775. Each of these migrations produced a distinct regional culture which can still be seen in America today." (from a review of ALBION'S SEED: FOUR BRITISH FOLKWAYS IN AMERICA by David Hackett Fischer, New York: Oxford University Press, 1989, hardbound, 948 pages, ISBN O-19-503794-4).

Key:
First English Revolution = 1642
Restoration = 1660
Second English Revolution ("Glorious") = 1688
Third English Revolution (now usually referred to as the American Revolution) = 1776

mark s (mark s), Friday, 11 February 2005 16:34 (twenty-one years ago)

haha i'm not convinced that presbyterians represent cavaliers!

(i think the socio-political make-up of the south is more complex and indeed conflicted than than that: the final wave - if fischer is correct - would be the estranged puritan-ish poor who were betrayed by the compromise of 1688, which put the bourgeoisie in charge alongside the decaying aristocracy)

(the poor who liked the restoration would surely not have emigrated?)

(isn't part of the energy of the "anti-liberal/blue-state" rhetoric of the modern south an inherited echo of the disgust this group felt during the 18th century at England's set-up of OLD CORRUPTION etc - which BOTH embattled sides during the ECW ended up being compromised by after 1688?)

mark s (mark s), Friday, 11 February 2005 16:46 (twenty-one years ago)

ie clinton is a rockingham whig!

mark s (mark s), Friday, 11 February 2005 16:48 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm sure I mentioned this upthread and in about 3 other threads but all this is very much the subject of the Kevin Phillips book, 'The Cousins Wars'.

haha i'm not convinced that presbyterians represent cavaliers!

They don't, really, but they are in opposition (in both 17th Century Britain and in 17th-18th century America) to the Puritans and they lived in a region heavily settled by disaffected royalists during the interregnum.

Re: The American War for Independence. Let's not forget how many tories were chased out of what would become the U.S. to Canada, where veterans were promised something like 50 acres. "Better one Tyrant three thousand miles away, then three thousand Tyrants one mile away" - Dr. Mather Biles (Cotton Mather's grandson)

Michael White (Hereward), Friday, 11 February 2005 17:00 (twenty-one years ago)

I keep trying to finish my book about the Causes of the ECW but I keep falling asleep and having terrible dreams about being chased by Lollards and Catholics and Puritans all trying to cut off my head. Oh dear.

Kate Kept Me Alive! (kate), Saturday, 12 February 2005 11:38 (twenty-one years ago)

316th anniversary of accession of power by William and Mary today.

Girolamo Savonarola, Sunday, 13 February 2005 18:22 (twenty-one years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.