Talk:English Civil War/Archive 1
The new introduction by Isis is interesting. I'm not sure how many people are likely to be confused into thinking that the term English Civil War could mean the Wars of the Roses or the war between Stephen and Matilda (which is usually called "the Anarchy" - is there already an article on that?) Anyone else got an opinion? Deb
- That information in the first paragraph is unnecessary and clutters up the article. A person who comes looking for information on the English Civil War should not have to wade through a bunch of references to wars that took place centuries earlier.
I was thinking of writing an article at English Revolution, which would discuss the English Civil War of 1640 from a revolutionary perspective, drawing on Christopher Hill's work, for example. I don't know where that fits in with the above question, but I thought I'd mention it here anyway! -- Sam
- That sounds interesting, too. I assume you would do something to differentiate it from the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Deb
Does the American Revolution deserve mention as an English Civil War? (Or do civil wars where the secessionists win not count?)
- Interesting point. But America was a colony, no? Not part of England itself, really. Otherwise we would call all the rebellions in colonies "civil wars" -- no I don't think it does count. Not because of who won, but the fact that it didn't happen in England. -- Sam
- Read The Cousins’ Wars: Religion, Politics, Civil Warfare, and the Triumph of Anglo–America, by Kevin Phillips. His thesis is that the English Civil War, the American Revoultion, and the American Civil War are all one long drawn-out war with the same combatants. -- Zoe
It seems conspicious that the only modern historian mentioned by name in this article is Christopher Hill. It seems like a stretch to draw Marxist allusions into the English Civil War, especially considering that it's given more than twice the real estate and more credence here than the Puritan theory or any other theories.
I don't like this artice, as it's got plenty of serious deficancies.
I'm probably going to rewrite the article sometime this week.
Just so you know.
Alun Ephraim 13:31, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. While Christopher Hill was a brilliant historian, he was, well, mostly wrong about everything (In fact, the most brilliant historians usually tend to be mostly wrong about everything - odd how that works out). Bringing in other (less discredited) views is certainly to be welcomed. john 18:46, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
What needs to be added to it is more stuff on the Religious tensions of the period, and also putting it into the context of the Thirty Years War. I might do a seperate article on the English Revolution though Alun Ephraim 14:44, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)
English Civil War?
I know that "English Civil War" is a common name for this conflict, but I think it's misleading because properly speaking there were two English Civil wars (1642-1645 and 1648-1650) during the conflict and simultaneous connected wars in Scotland and Ireland. Is there a better overall title for the whole conflict? If so, we should think about moving this article there. (Note: Google gives 52,900 for "civil+war cromwell" but only 15,300 for "english+civil+war cromwell" so I don't think I'm alone in this unease about the name.) Gdr 09:51, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)
- I've never heard any other term used. People in England are likely to say just "Civil War" unqualified, just as Americans do for their ACW, and you can see that from looking at some of the pages Google finds. To actually have 1/3 of the hits be qualified with "English" is actually a ringing endorsement. Some people will pluralize, but I think that looks like a blanket term covering previous conflicts. Stan 12:57, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'd say English Civil War is fine. Of course, there were various specific conflicts which can have their own articles - First English Civil War, Second English Civil War, and the various Scottish and Irish conflicts that were associated. But I think this is fine for a general article. john k 15:16, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I agree. Anything else would cause more confusion than it resolved. Deb 17:03, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Royalists call it the 'Interregnum' - Latin for 'between rules'
- You may be slightly confused. The war itself was not "between rules" - the interregnum was the period between the execution of Charles I in 1649 and the Restoration in 1660, also known as the Commonwealth. Deb 18:20, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
There have been very significant developments on this in recent years. The English civil war is now often seen as just one conflict in a series of conflicts accross the whole of the British Isles (see my comment on the 'History of Scotland' discussion page) These series of interelated conflicts are now often referred to as the 'British Civil Wars' or even 'The Wars of the three kingdoms'. These theories on the civil war argue that the civil war in England cannot be understood in isolation to events in other parts of Britian and Ireland. The role of King Charles I is still crucial, but not just as the king of England. The causes of the civil wars have been suggested as being a consequence of the problems of one king ruling over multiple kingdoms. For eg. trying to impose a uniform religion on all his kingdoms (which caused the Scottish covenanters to rebel), and then having to deal with rebellion in Ireland from the Confederates. Also events in one kingdom had a knock on effect in another, (eg. having to raise taxes in England to quell the rebellion in Scotland) leading to an escalation of the conflict which became increasingly difficult to control. This is not to say that there were not specific reasons for conflict in each country, just that the king had to juggle all these different conflicts at the same time. see http://www.historybookshop.com/articles/commentary/civil-wars-of-three-kingdoms-ht.asp --Cap 15:10, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)