Talk:English Civil War/Archive 1

message: 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
----
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Christopher Hill

message: 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)
thread_title: Religious tensions

message: 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? [Yes, see below] 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)
replies: text: I agree.  Anything else would cause more confusion than it resolved. Deb 17:03, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: I've now created a page called Wars of the Three Kingdoms and have produced a time-line of the conflicts (1639-51) although this needs more work after 1642. I was basing it on the section in Norman Davies' Book The Isles: A History which has a good overview aswell as the timeline which is linked to on the webpage quoted above. This includes the Bishops' Wars and Covenanters in Scotland and the Irish Rebellion of 1641 and the subsequent conflicts in Confederate Ireland 1642-9 and Cromwells conquest of Ireland in 1649 as well as the 2 (or 3?) English civil wars. There does seem to be some confusion about the labelling of the non-English conflicts. they are not given simple overall titles like the English Civil War is, there does seem to be somthing called the Scottish Civil War (1644-5) although on James Graham, 1st_Marquess_of_Montrose#The_English_Civil_War this is referred to as part of the English Civil War. Also there appear to be no wikipedia entries on any of the Irish conflicts. --Cap 12:03, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''English'' Civil War? 

message: User:Philip Baird Shearer cut the phrase "these conflicts are also known as the British Civil Wars" with the comment "Britain did not exist at the time of the English Civil war". I restored the comment as (1) Britain did exist: "Britain" is not identical with the Kingdom of Great Britain and (2) the conflicts are commonly known as the British Civil Wars: a Google search for "british civil wars" returns more than 3,000 hits, the top hits clearly referring to the 1638-1651 conflicts. Gdr 12:14, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)
:Many Irish people would dispute that Ireland is part of the British Isles geographically. They would argue that the term implies political connections because it is used exclusively for those islands ruled by the British monarchy and Ireland (which used to be). Why include the Shetland islands and exclude the Faroe islands; or the Channel islands and ignore French controlled islands; if it is not a geographical representation of a political creation?
:As Britain was not a political entity to use the term is misleading. There can not have been a "British Civil War" at that time any more that "World War I" was a "European Civil War". Once you go down that line you will have to include all the wars between England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland since at least 1066 as British Civil wars and that would be silly. If you were to start arguing that  1715 and 1745, and the Anglo-Irish War of 1919-1921 were British Civil wars you would be technically correct by they are never referred to as that. Philip Baird Shearer 12:48, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The term may be misleading but it is in common use so I think the article should reflect that. I adjusted the lead section to explain why the term is misleading. How is it now? Gdr 13:04, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)
They were British civil wars in the sense that there were civil wars in Scotland (between Covenanters and royalists) in England (between parliamentarians and royalists) and in Ireland (between Catholics, Protestant royalists, and Protestant supporters of the (English) parliament). john k 21:53, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: See British Isles#Subsequent political history and British Isles#Problems with modern usage.  Many Irish people would argue that wars in Ireland were (are) not British civil wars (they were (are) Irish civil wars). With the wars in Scotland and the Wars in England by the logic you are using, one could also call them European Civil wars. Britain did not come into existence as a political entity until the Act of Union 1707, it is disengenious to use the term, and just like  calling them European Civil wars it does not bring clarity to the subject. Philip Baird Shearer 22:19, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The Irish problem with the term "British" is modern,  the civil wars all took place in the geographical area of the British Isles - misleading is a fair description, "incorrect" projects modern politics backwards. dave souza 00:24, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: The evidence from British Isles and IONA is that the term "British Isles" was used as a geographical term for the isles including Ireland in the 17th century, but in the 20th century became politically unacceptable to Irish nationalists. Thus "British Civil Wars" is geographically accurate, but in addition to treading on current sensibilities it has the misleading suggestion of a British state at the time and civil wars could be held to exclude the Bishops Wars, so the Wars of the Three Kingdoms is much preferred. The "English Civil War" title is well established in English histories, but is obviously a daft term for Montrose, for example, when all his fights were in Scotland. Keeping this article with an English focus makes sense provided there are suitable links to fuller descriptions of the intertwining conflicts elsewhere. dave souza 21:51, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: you are obviously not from Warwickshire... The question is not where the war was fought but what makes it a civil war. For example if an English army fights a Scottish army is that a civil war? I suggest we do not go there again as it has already been discussed. As for putting in the century that makes no more sense than changing the "American Civil War" to  "19th Century American Civil War" as there has by common name usage only been one "English Civil War". Philip Baird Shearer 22:55, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Civil Wars 

message: :The term is often used In Anglo-centric history to cover the linked series of conflicts between 1639 and 1651 in the kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland, which at that time shared a monarch but were distinct countries in political organisation. Recent historians have used the term the Wars of the Three Kingdoms to more accurately cover these linked conflicts which included the English Civil War. 
I am not comfortable with the new dates which have been added to the article. The English civil wars cover the period from the raising of the Royal banner in 1642 and the Battle of Worcester (which despite the structure of the current article did include some English Royalists fighting for the King) in 1651. That the conflicts between 1639 and 1651 can be grouped under the term  Wars of the Three Kingdoms does not mean that the Bishops wars or the Irish Rebellion of 1641 have ever been included as part of the English civil war. As precursors yes, but not part of the war. Philip Baird Shearer 13:02, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: up to the edit before mine, the intro read "The English Civil War is the period of conflict in the kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland between 1639 and 1651, and also refers specifically to the two wars". and I took the dates from that: your comment is interesting, and I'll give it consideration. dave souza 22:14, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates

message: After the 1st civil war which manages to mention most of the major battles this article runs out of steam when describing the battles and sieges.
This article ought to include an overview of all the significant military actions which took place during the civil war. At the very least it needs a bullet point list of major battles and sieges in which took place during the war. The best place to put these would be at the end of the relevent section in chronological order. Along the lines of this link: http://www.theteacher99.btinternet.co.uk/ecivil/1648.htm  The bullet points can then be copy-edited into text at some later date. Philip Baird Shearer 16:54, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the new articles on First, Second, and Third wars, I think the need to do this is now redundent in this article, as those articles cover most of the major battle and sieges. But many of those now need writing :-( --Philip Baird Shearer 08:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks. Fixed. BTW you could have done it yourself. If you are interested in the pages why not create an account and help fix them? Philip Baird Shearer 08:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Major Battles and Sieges

message: I'm going to edit a few things about Wentworth (Earl of Strafford) and Ireland, so I want to explain myself first before I do. Wentworth was in Ireland to raise money for Charles I, he did this by equally taxing both Protestant and Catholic landowners, and therefore upset both sides - who actually joined forces briefly to have him executed. However, he certainly did not make an alliance with the Catholics against the Protestants. On the contrary, he was wholeheartedly committed to colonisation and anglicisation of Ireland. In fact he was constantly confiscating small amounts of catholic owned land and was planning a major new plantation in Connacht. This was one of the main reasons why so many Irish Catholic gentry joined the rebellion of 1641. Raising an Irish Catholic army against the scots in 1639-40 was not actually an alliance with them. The Irish gentry agreed to raise and supply this force at their own expense in return for guarentees against land confiscation, so Wentworth essentially had a gun to their heads. The fact that he was also greatly disliked by the Protestant settlers in Ireland is because unlike previous Lord Deputies, he governed according to Charles' wishes and not those of the local protestant community. Jdorney 19:40, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems funny to see him called Wentworth rather than Strafford, so I hope you will pardon my small edit. Philip Baird Shearer 22:07, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bill of Attainder does not require a burden of proof, just Parliaments displeasure (which is why it is banned in the US Constitution ( Article I, Section 9; Clause 3)). --Philip Baird Shearer 17:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Moreover, why would Wentworth write to the king asking him to reconsider his refusal?  I have a feeling that the king didn't really refuse.  Quote: "Charles, still incensed over the Commons's handling of Buckingham, refused. Wentworth himself, hoping to head off the war he saw looming, wrote to the king and asked him to reconsider." -- timc | Talk 17:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The current version of the article is much clearer, thanks. Now it is also clear that Strafford in effect requested his own execution. Jochietoch 12:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thomas Wentworth, 1st Earl of Strafford

message: I was confused by this paragraph on Thomas Wentworth: The case could not be proven, so the House of Commons, led by John Pym and Henry Vane, resorted to a Bill of Attainder. Unlike treason, attainder required not only the burden of proof, but also the king's signature. Charles, still incensed over the Common's handling of Buckingham, refused. Wentworth himself, hoping to head off the war he saw looming, wrote to the king and asked him to reconsider. Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford, was executed on May 12, 1641. -- If attainder required the king's signature, and king Charles refused, why was Wentworth executed? Also, the whole point of attainder seems to be to declare someone guilty without having to prove it -- i.e. it shouldn't 'require the burden of proof'. I have the feeling 'required' is not what's meant here, rather the opposite, but I have no knowledge of this subject. Could someone please clarify this paragraph? --Jochietoch 09:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bill of Attainder does not require a burden of proof, just Parliaments displeasure (which is why it is banned in the US Constitution ( Article I, Section 9; Clause 3)). --Philip Baird Shearer 17:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Moreover, why would Wentworth write to the king asking him to reconsider his refusal?  I have a feeling that the king didn't really refuse.  Quote: "Charles, still incensed over the Commons's handling of Buckingham, refused. Wentworth himself, hoping to head off the war he saw looming, wrote to the king and asked him to reconsider." -- timc | Talk 17:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The current version of the article is much clearer, thanks. Now it is also clear that Strafford in effect requested his own execution. Jochietoch 12:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Put not your trust in princes, nor in the sons of men, for in them is no salvation

message: An anonymous user added an essay to the article which I removed: . A more familiar user may wish to take a look at this version (the essay is in the middle) and see if anything is salvagable. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Essay

message: I recently revered some vandalism but to do it I had to remove an external link to www.kapitalism.net; aparently it has been black listed. -- HarrisX 20:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kapitalism 

message: Hello,
I was reading this article and I came across a couple of things that confused me or didn't seem to make sense. I thought I'd point them out here so that more knowledgable people could clarify:
:Charles also wanted to join in on the conflicts being fought in Europe. This alone might not have caused a problem, except that Charles had placed George Villiers, the Duke of Buckingham, in command.
What was wrong with George Villiers?
Also:
:Into this atmosphere General George Monck, governor of Scotland under the Cromwells, marched south with his army from Scotland. On April 4, 1660, in the Declaration of Breda, Charles II made known the conditions of his acceptance of the crown of England.
It's unclear to me how these two things relate. The sentence after this makes it seem as though Monck was marching south in order to help reinstate Charles, but if he was governor under the Cromwells, wouldn't he be a Parliamentarian, not a Royalist?
Hbackman 03:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some questions 

message: Please see the proposed page move from Cavaliers (royalists) to Cavalier on Talk:Cavaliers (royalists) --Philip Baird Shearer 01:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cavaliers (royalists) to Cavalier

message: Err, it appears somebody deleted the synopsis. The "introduction" starts off in the middle of a idea. The terrible thing is that its been edited since then apparently with nobody noticing. --Brentt 10:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Header