I have been reading Tristram Hunt’s book on the English Civil War. It is not a book that makes many conclusions to engage with. Instead, it offers readers information [particularly people like me who don’t know much of the details of the period or have long since forgotten!]. It includes a lot of quotes from primary sources which, although written in unfamiliar and difficult-to-understand English, are quite interesting.
Hunt highlights that, in 1640, no one expected things to transpire over the next decade the way they did. It was an unanticipated combination of circumstances that led to things turning out the way they did.
What is often forgotten is that it was a Scottish Covenanteer rebellion that led to the King needing money and so calling Parliament. Paradoxically the Covenanteers later ended up fighting on the King’s side against the English Parliament in the 'Second Civil War' – since they did not like the direction the religious policies of the English Parliament were heading.
The book also pays attention to Ireland. It was a Catholic rebellion and the weak royal response there that helped fuel indignation at the royal government among some Puritans. It is also where Cromwell later waged some of his most brutal campaigns.
The book, given my interests, does not focus enough on the Diggers and Levellers. However, it is clear that the whole process of raising an army – particularly one that was inspired by patriotic and religious ideas rather than a mercenary one or one based on feudal duty - itself meant that the populace was radicalised. The talk of liberty by parliamentarians meant that ordinary soldiers developed an awareness of the importance of the concept. They also wondered by they could not have the same liberty that the gentry were asking for.
The Civil War was the last major conflict that pitted one English army against another. As such, it caused a lot of death, destruction and devastation to the country. Something else that the firsthand accounts bring out is that the war became more brutal as time went on. People became more hardened and more callous.
The importance of religion in the era can not be understated as well. Part of the root of the conflict is the conflict between two interpretations of Protestantism – the Puritan one and the Laudian one. King Charles – for all the claims of his enemies that he was a papist – appears to have been loyal to the C of E. It is just that he had a very episcopalian and high-church view of it. The Puritans disagreed with this.
However, in addition to Puritans, there were others known as “Independents”. They were, in a sense, more radical than the Puritans. The Puritans aspired for a Church more like that of Calvin’s. The various sects of Independents wanted to go further. They often had socially and economically more radical views. They also pressed for religious freedom. They did not all support the idea of a state church – which both Laudians and Puritans did. The Levellers were among those who pressed for religious freedom. And, in this at least, they had the sympathy of Cromwell. Having fought the civil war for what he saw as liberty – Cromwell did not want to see religious liberty curtailed too much by Presbyterians within Parliament. That is one of the reasons why he fell out with the Scots Covenanteers – who wanted a Church of England similar to the Scottish model.
The republic that resulted from the end of the civil war and the execution of the King was unprecedented and unexpected. At the time, the only other republics in Europe were small Swiss states and the Netherlands. England became the largest republic – without a blueprint for how it would govern itself.
The trial of Charles I is also covered in detail. The trial does bring to mind some of the war crimes trials that have been held in recent history. Charles defends himself – like others in similar circumstances have done – by questioning the legitimacy of the court to judge him. By definition, trials such as his are political in nature and are not really ‘judicial’ events. The verdict was a foregone conclusion before the trial even started.
However, I would vehemently disagree with those who try and paint Charles as a martyr. The fact is – he could have avoided the civil war if he had taken a less haughty and high-handed approach to parliament in the first place. Additionally, if he had won, he would have meted out terrible punishment to the parliamentarian side. As such, I feel it would be one-sided to condemn the Parliamentarians for executing Charles given the circumstances they were in.
technorati tags:
political news | news | world news
More at: News 2 Cromley
No comments:
Post a Comment