NationStates Jolt Archive

On another thread I made a disparaging remark about the lack of original high quality debates on this forum. Someone made the obvious point that I ought to go out of my way to start one so here we go:

To what extent was religion the predominant factor in the causes of the English civil war?

My contention, similar to that of the eminent historian John Morrill, is that the English civil war arose primarily from religious causes to the extent that it might be considered the last of the European "wars of religion" rather than the first "European revolution" of the modern era.

To summarise my arguments; essentially, the powerful socio-religious undercurrents of Puritanism and anti-Catholicism which had lain dormant since the Elizabethan settlement were activated by Charles I's erratic shift of religious policy away from the "big tent" offered by moderate Calvinist doctrines to the popish innovations of Arminianism as espoused by Archbishop Laud.

These powerful forces essentially provided the driving force through which the political spectrum was polarised and paved the way for the radicalisation of non-conformists and the collapse of effective constitutional rule. Furthermore, the fact that ones religious affiliation was the most effective determinant of who they would support during the war is strongly suggestive of the notion that religious factors were the primary cause of the war.

Lol

Your thoughts?

I like traffic lights.



















but not when they are red.

When referring to England, can you really say “the civil war.” Haven’t you guys had like, five since you were subjected by a Frenchman who happened to be a corpulent bastard?

You have succesfully made a serious debate thread. Mortally serious. I mean serious as in this is where fun comes to die. Good luck.

You have succesfully made a serious debate thread. Mortally serious. I mean serious as in this is where fun comes to die. Good luck.

Lol - it was meant ironically.

To reply to the actual op: I largely disagree. While religion had it's influence (certainly in the Divine Right of Kings/Rights of the Nobility arguments) I believe the fundamental question was who really ran the country, King or Parliament. Since there was no binding document setting out the rules of control and areas of responsibility (a fact that, regrettably, holds true even today), power had been flowing back and forth between the bodies of Court and Parliament for years, first one atop, then another.

Had Charles the First been a competent ruler, his disbanding of Parliament might have been accepted. But Charles was not competent; and thus, in addition to those Parliamentarians who desired to rule for reasons of power being dismayed by his actions, you could also add those who honestly felt a responsibility towards the country, who could not stand by and let this spendthrift King wreck years of work and put the country back into serious debt.

Roundhead leaders ranged from Puritans like Cromwell, through moderate Protestants, all the way to not-so-secret Catholics. The same, by and large, can be said of the Cavaliers. My take on the English Civil War is that it was a war of secular reasons.

I know nothing about this topic, but I'll put forward an argument anyway.

This is a question to both people who think they have serious answers: why wasn't it caused by economic reasons, as opposed to ideological or political ones? After all, most wars are economic at heart.

When referring to England, can you really say “the civil war.” Haven’t you guys had like, five since you were subjected by a Frenchman who happened to be a corpulent bastard?
hmm, good question. I can only think of two; two and a half if you're generous with the counting:

1. The Wars of the Roses
2. The Civil War
2 1/2. William of Orange taking the throne.

I'm not counting English - Scottish wars, as the UK didn't exist before 1707 so they don't count as civil.

Anyone want to add to the list with blindingly obvious examples I've missed?

but not when they are red.

You win. [/thread]

hmm, good question. I can only think of two; two and a half if you're generous with the counting:

1. The Wars of the Roses
2. The Civil War
2 1/2. William of Orange taking the throne.

I'm not counting English - Scottish wars, as the UK didn't exist before 1707 so they don't count as civil.

Anyone want to add to the list with blindingly obvious examples I've missed?

might want to add the Barons War that was in some sorts a civil War

then '15 & '45 rebellions there where also in many ways a civil war

hmm, good question. I can only think of two; two and a half if you're generous with the counting:

1. The Wars of the Roses
2. The Civil War
2 1/2. William of Orange taking the throne.

I'm not counting English - Scottish wars, as the UK didn't exist before 1707 so they don't count as civil.

Anyone want to add to the list with blindingly obvious examples I've missed?

What about the troubles between Matilda & King Stephen in the middle of the 12th century?

What about the troubles between Matilda & King Stephen in the middle of the 12th century?
I'd be reluctant to include anything before the start of the 'state system,' as it's often tricky in this period to say exactly who is in charge; the Crown would claim to be, but actually had very little power, at least over the periphery. The Wars of The Roses are still probably too early for the notion of one State, but it was Henry VII who banned private armies following it; as such, with just a national army, it is easier to claim that any rebellion is a rebellion against the Crown.