MR SPENCE HISTORY
This unit will cover:
-
Early Modern States (1450-1789)
England and the Tudor Reconquest of Ireland
-
Early Modern Wars (1500-1750)
Causes, Course and Consequences of the English Civil War
The Tudor Reconquest of Ireland and the English Civil War
We will begin the unit by examining the situation of England's government during the reigns of Elizabeth I (1558-1603) and James I (1603-1625). Understanding how these two monarchs ruled allows you to answer two parts of the syllabus:
Political systems in an established state
and
Long-term factors for an Early-Modern War
Technically, we are classifying England as a state in the ascendency, but by 1558 it was a second-tier European power. England can only be classified as a state in ascendency compared to Ireland. If you want to use England as a state in decline you can. Just be sure to justify why it had fallen from its medieval position to have similar power to Sweden or Portugal.
Remember that England and Spain are from the same region, so read any exam question carefully before comparing the two. When revising I would study prepare answers for English vs Ming Governance or Spanish vs Aztec governance.
You can compare the English Civil War with the Conquest of the Aztec as they are from different regions. We are going to begin by examining the long-term factors of the English Civil War. These are not ideal to compare to the Aztec. Looking at the build-up to Nurhaci's invasion of China would be preferrable.
The reasons for the English Civil War are contentious. Michael J Braddick describes it as "Blood-stained historiographical terrain." We will study the debates among historians in-depth, but below is a broad overview of the historiography.
Contemporaries were at a loss to explain the reasons for the calamity, seeing it as: "one unexpected accident after another, as waves of the sea which have brought us thus far and we scarce know how."
Edward Hyde, a chief minister of Charles II would write in the 1660s that it began due to mistakes made by both sides in political and religious administration. James Harrington would see it as a culmination of tensions between the old landed elite and a newer, rising middle group that can be traced back to Henry VII.
In the late Nineteenth Century and early Twentieth Century, the Whiggish view predominated. These historians saw the conflict as a constitutional power struggle between the crown and parliament, which began in the reign of Henry VIII that coincided with Crown support for a conservative church against a group of radical Puritans.
The mid-Twentieth Century saw the teleological/constitutional explanation challenged by Marxists, who found that the conflict sprang from long-term socio-economic change, which resulted in a 'bourgeios revolution' against the old aristocracy.
In the 1970s and 1980s, revisionist historians reverted back to constitutional and religious explanations. However, they maintained that the breakdown of the political system was a short-term occurrence. They believe the early Stuart state was secure until Charles I's disastrous mismanagement in the 1640s.
The revisionist movement broke in the 1990s. Many historians found that Conrad Russell and his acolytes were too willing to overlook long-term weaknesses in Stuart finances and problems with the Elizabethan religious settlement. Many favoured a 'three kingdoms' approach. They contend that the war was caused by a monarch careless in dealing with Scottish and Irish crises, which then spread into England.
In the Twenty-First century, there has been a movement of post-revisionism or neo-historicism, which favours a 'bottoms up' approach, looking at popular culture and the recollections of the people from the local level and looking at their impact on political events to explain why they chose sides so quickly when war broke out.
Currently, an impasse exists. There have been no major works devoted to the war's causes in decades. When you come to trying to explain the causes in your essays, you will perhaps understand why historians are hesitant to wade into the topic.
Tudor-Stuart Governance
The fourth Early Modern State that we study is Ireland. This exemplar is not on the short list of IB-suggested topics, but I am comfortable that it is appropriate. The probable reason that it is not suggested is that England claimed sovereignty of Ireland well before 1450. However, by 1450, England only had effective power in a small area known as the Pale. The other reason why this is difficult is that Ireland was not a unified state, therefore its government cannot be studied as a state in decline. Therefore we are only going to study the areas of Ireland that directly apply to the syllabus, especially the areas which are not best served through studying New Spain. In particular, we will focus on:
- Rationale for expansion
- Methods of expansion
- Methods of maintaining power
- Rivalries and tensions
- Challenges to Colonial Rule
Even though we will not try to understand Irish governance in detail, you should have a general understanding of the state of Ireland at the start of the Sixteenth Century. In particular, we will examine how it was ethnically divided into three different groups and what the characteristics of each were. We will also need to understand how the power dynamics between these groups worked so we can understand why the English expansion from Henry VIII onwards was a break from the past.
The basic problem that Henry VIII grappled with in Ireland was how to increase the Crown's power without increasing expenditure. He had broadly three options of governance.
1. Use the most powerful Anglo-Irish lord - The Earldom of Kildare who maintained order with his own forces.
2. Back a rival of Kildare and maintain a small English force.
3. Maintain a force that was larger than Kildare could contend with.
All of these policies were tried. The confused strategy culminated in the Kildare Rebellion of 1534, which can be seen as an English-led rebellion or the beginning of a pan-Irish nationalism. You will need to understand the methods the English attempted in ruling Ireland, evaluating the success of Thomas Cromwell in the 1530s and then Surrender and Regrant in the 1540s. You will need to also be able to compare these with the Spanish in Mexico and also the differing motives for conquest.
The second part of our study into the Tudor Reconquest of Ireland will focus on Elizabeth I. There was a conscious break with the Surrender and Regrant of Henry's reign. This change was not all Elizabeth's doing; the regents of Edward VI already had overturned Antony St Leger's policies, replacing them with the new plantation system. Elizabeth demanded obedience from Ireland that her father would not. However, her English reign's weaknesses were intensified in Ireland, while her strengths in personal politics had little impact in a country that she did not visit. The end result was a series of costly rebellions and the complete alienation of Gaelic Ireland and the Anglo-Irish gentry. Her reign cemented the Anglo-Irish discord that remains today. What you need to understand is why her policies were unsuccessful and the nature and extent of the rebellions. You will also need to assess whether i the English had any greater control over Ireland in 1603 than they did at Henry's 1509 accession
Tudor England in Ireland
Few historical topics have generated as much debate as the English Civil War. Michael C Braddick appositely describes the field as blood-stained historiographical terrain, referencing the arguments that raged through British universities (particularly Oxford and Cambridge) during the 1960s and 1970s.
It is hardly surprising that later generations of historians have struggled
to locate the wars' origins, many contemporaries were unsure or divided about their causes. Hardly anyone before 1642 contemplated the possibility of civil war, although many thought catastrophe of some sort was upon them. Threats and enemies abounded, but few in England imagined they would have to fight each other. But if nobody in 1640 truly believed that Civil War was possible, does it make it the accepted argument that it was the long-term factors exacerbated by Charles I were the primary factor false? That is essentially the revisionist view, one that has been effectively disproven.
Alternative explanations have been equally unsatisfactory. These have been various combinations of
1. The increasing costs of central government, not being willing to be covered by the governing class, without an increase in their role in deciding how it was spent. Whiggish
2. A growing bourgeoise's aspirations were stymied by the Stuarts and their governing class, and so they rebelled. Marxist
3. The incomplete reformation, which was always a potential powder keg and that Charles moved away from the established middle ground, infuriated those who wanted further Protestant reform.
4.. The Kingdoms of England, Ireland and Scotland were vastly different societies, and the scope for one monarch to enforce a measure of conformity on all was unlikely to succeed. Three Kingdoms
Post-revisionists or second-generation revisionists have reshaped the approach to the question by identifying parliamentarians who, from the beginning of Charles's reign upset the traditions of the King in Parliament model. New historicists have downplayed the importance of parliament, viewing the court as the true locus of power. They have pointed to changing intellectual and cultural trends rooted in fear and paranoia that the Stuarts failed to adapt to. Peter Lake has combed through the 300,000 sermons delivered in the first part of the seventeenth century. He concludes that anti-popery was the dominant concern and sees the Civil War as a confrontation between a King and a group who favoured a theological oligarchy. Geoffrey Parker and Jonathan Scott have put the Civil War as being part of a European-wide context of instability tied to global cooling and demographic stress.
In essence, there are no easy answers; indeed no single volume attempt to answer the question of what caused the war has been made in over 30 years. Your job is to try and distil these questions into something clear and approachable in 400 words or so.
Causes of the English Civil War
The Course of the English Civil War
Traditionally, seventeenth-century warfare has been described as undergoing a revolution. As with any bold claim, this view has been challenged by identifying the continuity with the preceding century. Whether it had or not is irrelevant to us, as the English Civil War did not have armies that were trained enough to implement the new European tactics. However, before we learn what happened in the war, it is first necessary to understand how each of the components functioned and the various methods of warfare that could have been adopted. We will use Chapter Three of Wanklyn and Jones' Military History of the English Civil War . For students used to major battles of enormous significance, the English Civil War can be both confusing and disappointing. The war was generally localised, amateurish and on a small scale. Still, 125,000 were killed , which is a higher percentage of the English population than the First and Second World Wars combined. The war divided families, towns, and parishes. It set the scene for the execution of a reigning monarch and a further decade of religious and political turmoil.
The historiography of the English Civil War, for a long time, was what we would define as determinist or structuralist. The preponderance of resources that Parliament had was what enabled it to eventually form the New Model Army and achieve victory. This view was relatively unchallenged until Trevor Royle pointed to the Scots as being the decisive factor, and whose absence would have made it very difficult for Parliament to achieve victory. In the 2000s, the determinist approach was further challenged by post-revisionists such as John Stubbs, Diane Purkis, and Tristram Hunt, who ploughed through primary sources concerning all levels of the participants. They highlight that contemporaries were far less certain of a parliamentarian victory and the entire war was a messy and uncertain affair. Steven J Reid has married their research to the structuralist approach to come to the conclusion that although parliament did have some advantages, the outcome was never as certain as it seemed and that Charles did have the opportunity for victory in 1643.
In 1646, Charles I surrendered. The reasons for his defeat can be briefly summarised as:
1. Parliamentary control of London and the more populous regions.
2. Control of the Navy
3. The English alliance with Scotland compared to Charles with Ireland.
4. The better skills and efficiency of the NMA.
5. Stronger religious motivation of parliament.
6. Missed opportunities by Charles and Rupert.
The Second Civil War of 1648 is more difficult to characterise. As it was not so much a resumption of the Civil War than a series of uncoordinated revolts against the Army. Where it is useful is in evaluating the impact that the Scots had on the war (which was pretty minimal) and looking at the leadership skills of both Charles I and Cromwell, which would make a nice paragraph. Really the importance of this is in beginning your essay if you were asked on the Political or Religious consequences of the war.
The importance of this section is really to analyse the question dealing with any question about the successes and failures of peacemaking. In dealing with this historians are fairy unified that it was primarily due to the nature of Charles, although Aylmer argues his strategy of playing his captors against each other was a slight miscalculation rather than a wild and hopeless one. It is handy to remember the words of the Royalist commander Lord Astley who said to his captors in 1646: "You have now done your work, boys, and may go to play, unless you fall out among yourselves.' You will need to evaluate the extent that this prevented any permanent settlement."
Unsurprisingly, the execution of the King brought about some major political changes (albeit short lived). The fundamental problem is that the execution of the King was based on the idea of providentialism. That the regicide had no theoretical basis raised some pretty fundamental philosophical problems in finding a viable alternative government. Five different forms of government were tried in the decade after Charles' death, with none successful. Fundamentally, England was ruled on the basis of noble privilege and few had the desire to upset this.
One of the most debated aspects of British history throughout the 1960s and 1970s was the nature and meaning of the English revolution, or if indeed it was a revolution at all. There is no doubt that the execution of the King was a deeply important political event, but the political settlement that followed was ill planned and deeply unpopular. You will need to understand why both the Rump and its successor was unable to rule England and to evaluate the extent it represented a break with the political past.
In the mid-part of the Twentieth Century there was a tendency to characterise Cromwell's protectorate of 1653-1658 as a military dictatorship. Whilst these views primarily derived from the works of politicians, journalists and popular biographers, the works of professional historians have been only marginally successful in changing the public consciousness. Whilst it is undoubted that there are authoritarian characteristics, what is more interesting is to debate whether Cromwell wished to exhibit them at all. You will also need to evaluate if there is any deeper meaning that can be attributed to the instrument or was it just a passing glitch in British political history.
Consequences of the English Civil War
Potential IA Questions
Why had England lost control of Ireland by 1450?
How secure was the 'the Pale' in the fifteenth century?
How integrated was Ireland with Europe in the fifteenth century?
How stable was Irish society in the fifteenth century?
How English were the Anglo-Irish lords?
How committed was Henry VIII to English reassertion of power in Ireland?
How great a threat was the Kildare Rebellion of 1534?
How far was the Kildare rebellion an indigenous affair?
Why did Ireland not experience a Reformation?
How successful was Surrender and Regrant?
What were Elizabeth I's views on the Irish?
How successful was the Munster plantation for Tudor control in Ireland?
How far was the O'Neill rebellion religiously motivated?
How poor a military commander was Essex in Ireland?
How significant was the English victory at Kinsale?
How far was xenophobia responsible for the collapse of the proposed Union of England and Scotland in 1606?
How deep was the opposition to James's foreign policy?
How far was the London theatre responsible for the negative reputation of the Duke of Buckingham?
How far was anti-Scottish sentiment responsible for the failure of the Great Contract?
How far was the Howard faction responsible for the collapse of the addled parliament?
How effective a financial manager was Elizabeth I?
How unpopular was Elizabeth I by the end of her reign?
Was Mary Queen of Scots involved in the Throckmorton plot?
Who murdered Sir Thomas Overbury?
How influential was the Calvinist opposition to James I?
How effective was the masque as a form of court propaganda?
How far can Simonds D'Ewes be regarded as a reliable source on James I?
How important was the rediscovery of Tacitus to English historicism?
How deep was the division between James and Henry Prince of Wales?
How far has Anne of Denmark been a victim of misogyny?
Was Charles I adequately prepared for kingship?
Why did Charles and Buckingham travel to Madrid in 1623?
How great was the Jacobean parliamentary opposition in the 1620s?
What explains the closeness of Charles I and Henrietta-Maria?
How far was the Duke of Buckingham responsible for the disastrous war with Spain?
How far did Charles I fulfil the conditions of the Petition of Right?
Why did Charles implement the policy of Personal Rule in 1629?
How successful was the policy of 'Thorough'?
How legal was Ship Money?
Did the Personal Rule of Charles I, bring greater stability to England?
How arbitrary was the decision to impose a Prayer Book on Scotland?
Was Charles correct to decline battle in the First Bishops War?
Why was the Short Parliament dismissed after only three weeks?
How far does a lack of finance explain the English defeat in the Bishop's War?
Did the crown lose the Propaganda War in 1641?
Why did Charles sign the execution order for Thomas Wentworth?
What explains the Irish Rebellion in 1641?
How embedded was anti-Catholic hysteria in 1641?
Why did Parliament split in 1641?
How significant was the Five Members Coup?
How far did (any battle) demonstrate the principles of seventeenth-century warfare?
How far was artillery of use on the seventeenth-century battlefield?
How revolutionary a commander was Gustav Adolphus of Sweden?
How successfully did the Royalists overcome the problem of recruitment in the English Civil War?
How decisive were the Scots in determining the outcome of the English Civil War?
To what extent were the Irish soldiers persecuted during the English Civil War?
Why did parliament vote for the Self-Denying Ordinance in 1644?
Was Naseby the decisive battle of the English Civil War?
How significant was the creation of the New Model Army?
How important was Naval strategy in the English Civil War?
How effective a commander was Prince Rupert of the Palatine?
What explains the collapse of the populist parliamentarian support from 1646-1649?
How far was the regicide of Charles I a planned outcome?
Was there any prospect of a Royalist victory in the Second English Civil War?
How great was Scottish support for Charles I and II between 1648 and 1651?
How far did the execution of Charles I change the populist perception of the King in the 1650s?
How far did the Rump parliament fail due to a lack of legitimacy?
How deep was the fifth-monarchist influence in the Barebones Parliament?
How fair is it to describe the Protectorate as a Cromwellian dictatorship?
Why did Cromwell go to war with Spain in 1654?
How draconian was the Rule of the Major Generals?
Why did Oliver Cromwell decline the Humble Petition and Advice?
Why did Oliver Cromwell allow Jews to reenter England?
How religiously tolerant was Oliver Cromwell?
How far was England a theocracy in the 1650s?
How far was the restoration about the return of Anglicanism?