The events between 1637 and 1660 occurred over a wide political and social base, becoming, in part, an international conflict as Irish and Scottish involvement became greater, although for the English and those outside the multiple kingdom it may have seemed to be a single conflict.[1] However, viewing these conflicts from an archipelagic perspective may not only demonstrate the political complexity of the period but the isolationism and internationalism of those involved. While the central conflict is often known as the ‘English Civil War’ it could be argued that the Civil War was flanked by conflicts with both Scotland and Ireland, furthermore political tensions within England were exacerbated by tensions within the multiple kingdom thus suggesting that by tracing these tensions throughout the period a wider view of the conflicts may be understood. There are also regional differences in terms of support for the conflict which need to be taken into account and may lend a clearer understanding of the events, even in a geographically small area, such as the conflicts between Cornwall and Devon.[2] While it could be suggested that taking an archipelagic perspective may initially make the events of the period more complicated, by demonstrating how each event was connected to others and how different political and religious ideologies were important in leading up to the conflicts, an archipelagic perspective can only increase understanding.
In order to understand the initial beginnings of the conflict, a British Isles perspective may be particularly helpful; it could be seen that Charles I’s status as king of both Scotland and England appear to involve Scotland in issues of English politics, as apparently demonstrated by the need Charles felt to instruct Scotland not to get involved in English politics.[3] Charles’ neglect of Scotland throughout his reign might also lead to the suggestion that Scottish involvement in the conflicts was part of a separate political agenda, particularly as Charles appeared to believe that the Scots would be difficult to keep out of England.[4] While this may be the case, it has also been suggested that the political climate of both Scotland and Ireland were exacerbated in order to try to resolve the conflict between king and parliament D. H. Pennington, for example, argues that the Irish Rebellion was used to force the king to take advisors approved by parliament.[5] This might therefore suggest that while Charles argued that the conflicts English Civil War was a conflict simply between himself and the English parliament, there were attempts to create a wider more complex conflict in order to suit the purpose of the English parliament, for example the use of stories as propaganda such as that from John Davis about the movements of Welsh papists.[6] It may therefore be concluded that by viewing the political motivations involved in the conflict across the Atlantic Archipelago the understanding of the events is increased.[7]
- G. A Pocock further argues that the conflicts between 1637 and 1660 should be known as the War of Three Kingdoms as it consisted of separate conflicts which were politically linked.[8] This could be further supported by Mark Stoyle’s argument that there were places which were politically misaligned compared to the rest of the country, Wrexham for example is described as a ‘little England’ – both politically and linguistically different to the surrounding areas.[9] It could be suggested that places such as Wrexham have been seen as demonstrating participation in the conflict between Charles and the English parliament rather than gauging the wider contexts surrounding the conflict. It could be suggested that by using the views of an area of Wales which was ethnically different as the views of the whole country this restricts the perspective and clouds the view of the events in Wales. This could be taken further as even in England there were no two single views about approaching the conflicts and the reasoning between it, each county had its own approach to the conflict, some areas such as Devon and Cornwall came to their own separate resolutions to that of the Parliamentarian and Royalist regimes.[10] This might therefore suggest that there was no civil war as such but a series of conflicts springing up across the British Isles at the same time as a conflict between king and parliament.
The theory of there being multiple conflicts throughout the period is further supported by John Walter’s argument that even during the First Civil War different areas of the British Isles took different approaches to the conflict.[11] Moreover there is a suggestion that the Irish aspects of the conflicts were more like a war of religion as opposed to a civil war, although it could be argued that religion formed the basis for an Irish Civil War at the time of the Ulster Rising.[12] While it could alternatively be argued that the conflicts in Ireland were more like a struggle for independence, culminating in the formation of the Kilkenny parliament, these two views of the conflicts in Ireland throughout the period demonstrate that there was not one single civil war but many connected conflicts throughout the British Isles. It could further be suggested that Scotland also had a civil war which is particularly demonstrable with the Earl of Montrose rising against the main Scottish troops. However, this uprising could be seen as the highland raids Pocock argues were only experienced in Scotland, thus perhaps suggesting Scotland did not experience a civil war.[13] This therefore illustrates the fact that by taking an archipelagic perspective to the conflicts between 1637 and 1660 complicates the view but challenges the understanding of relationships between nations involved in the conflicts.
Despite there being clear arguments for the conflicts being a civil war, Pocock argues that the conflict could not have been a civil war as the political standing of Ireland was not strong enough for a civil war.[14] However, it could be argued that the conflicts were a British Civil War as soldiers of all nationalities were dispersed throughout the British Isles.[15] It could be further be demonstrated that the conflicts were a civil war as there was little to no military involvement from outside of the British Isles. However, it could be argued that this was not a civil war but a series of different conflicts as different kinds of warfare were used such as guerrilla warfare in Ireland.[16] There is, however, considerable evidence for the events between 1637 and 1660 being a war of religion as not only did religion play a fundamental role in the conflicts in Ireland, but in the way Scotland and Wales were portrayed as participating in the conflict, although Richard Overton implied that the Scottish became involved in order to regain their rights, religious or otherwise.[17] Religion most noticeably played a role in the conflicts in Ireland as Jane Ohlmeyer implies, had the Catholics won the Ulster Rebellion, Charles would have had greater Irish support.[18] Therefore it could be suggested that the conflicts were largely parts of a larger war of religion which was greater than each part of the British Isles.
Despite aspects of a war of religion the nature of a multiple kingdom might imply that religion was heavily linked to politics and that this was largely a civil war, it could be suggested that the ‘identity crisis’ caused by the civil war for Irish Protestants demonstrates how intertwined politics and religion are.[19] It could be argued that the conflicts between 1637 and 1660 appeared to be a war of religion as it could be demonstrated that religion was used to deflect from the political conflict, particularly in the First Civil War. This is most noticeable in the way that, primarily Parliamentarians, believed that England was under threat from Irish and Welsh Catholics.[20] However it could be suggested that this opposition was more as a result of a lack of support for Puritanism outside of England; in Wales and Scotland there was greater support for the established church and the king.[21] The extent to which the established church was linked to national identity demonstrates that the events which occurred between 1637 and 1660 was part of a war of religion as opposed to a civil war.[22] However, it could be seen that the conflicts between 1637 and 1660 were in fact part of a civil war. It could be argued that as Charles was king of the multiple kingdom any conflicts between the nations were a civil war and were seen as such by contemporaries.[23] However, David Scott argues that the Second Civil War could be seen as the English and Welsh stages of a wider conflict, thus implying that if the conflicts were a civil war there was not a civil war which encompassed the whole of the multiple kingdom.[24] This is further supported by John Lewis’ argument that Wales should not side with Scotland as he believed that the difference in religion was too great, although this could also demonstrate that this was a civil war as it was a difference between the nations.[25] This could be used to both demonstrate that the conflicts were a civil war as it was a conflict between two aspects of the British Isles whilst perhaps implying that it was not a civil war as the key issue was religion as opposed to politics. This could therefore support the suggestion that the revolution was part of a wider war of religion.[26]
Large parts of analysis of the conflicts between 1637 and 1660 results from retrospect, therefore it could be suggested that the current view of the events between 1637 and 1660 is different to how contemporaries around the British Isles viewed the conflicts. There is an argument made by Cromwell that changing the makeup of the kingdom would pit areas and counties against each other.[27] However, this could be countered by the referral to counties as countries by contemporaries during the period.[28] This might suggest that while areas of the kingdom were not pitted against each other they were not united either, perhaps leading to the suggestion that the conflicts between 1637 and 1660 were not a civil war or a war between different nations but conflicts between local and national governments. However, the Collins dictionary defines a civil war as ‘a war which is fought between different groups of people who live in the same country’ this therefore supports Pocock’s argument that the term civil war could only be applied to England.[29] While Pocock suggests that this is due to the nature of the fighting in Scotland, as there were only highland raids here, as well as the difficulties in the political make up of Ireland, it could be suggested that the conflicts were not in fact a civil war outside of England but were linked conflicts as Scotland and Ireland were politically separate.[30]
While taking an archipelagic perspective to the events between 1637 and 1660 appears to make the conflicts more complicated, it demonstrates that the conflict cannot be neatly tucked within the parameters of a civil war. The nature of a multiple kingdom, and the extent to which religion and politics were played against each other demonstrates the complex causes of the conflict. It may be argued that the conflicts should be called a civil war as this is what iy was known by contemporaries, however retrospect as well as a broad historiography surrounding the period make it near impossible to do so when an archipelagic perspective is used. The vast range of reasons for conflicts in each of the four nations demonstrates that the simplest name for these conflicts could only be, as Pocock suggests, a War of Three Kingdoms, to simplify this any further would be to ignore important elements of the conflict.[31] Therefore it may be seen that using an archipelagic perspective not only increases understanding of how and in which order the events of 1637-1660 occurred, but the reasons behind the occurrence, thus demonstrating that this perspective is beneficial to the study of the period 1637-1660.
[1] John Morrill, ‘Historical Introduction and Overview: The Un-English Civil War’, in John R. Young ed. Celtic Dimensions of the British Civil War, (Edinburgh, 1997), p. 5
[2] Mark Stoyle, Soldiers and Strangers: An Ethnic History of the English Civil War, (Bury St Edmonds, 2005), p. 33 & John Adair, By The Sword Divided: Eyewitnesses of the English Civil War, (London, 1983), p. 88
[3] David Scott, Politics and War in the Three Stuart Kingdoms 1637-49, (Basingstoke, 2004), p. 47
[4] Scott, Politics and Wa, p. 50
[5] D. H. Pennington, ‘The Rebels of 1642’ in R. H. Parry, ed. The English Civil War and After, (London, 1974), p. 33
[6] Brian Manning, ‘The Outbreak of the English Civil War’ in Parry, English Civil War, p. 5
[7] J. G. A. Pocock, ‘British History: A Plea for a New Subject’ The Journal of Modern History Vol 147 No 4 (1975), p. 603
[8] Pocock, ‘British History’, p. 605
8 Stoyle, Soldiers and Strangers, p. 88
[10] Adair, By The Sword Divided, p. 88
[11] John Walter, ‘The Impact on Society: A World Turned Upside Down’ in John Morrill ed. The Impact of the English Civil War, (London, 1991), p. 110
[12] John Morrill, ‘Renaming England’s Wars of Religions’ in Glen Burgess & Charles W. A. Prior eds. England’s Wars of Religion Revisited, (Farnham, 2011), p. 110
[13] Pocock, ‘British History’, p. 605
[14] Pocock, ‘British History’ p. 605
[15] Morrill, ‘Historical Introduction and Overview’, p. 6
[16] Éamonn o Ciardha, ‘Tories and Mass-Troopers in Scotland and Ireland in the Interregnum: A Political Dimension’ in Young, Celtic Dimensions, p. 142
[17] ‘An Appeal o the People’ from Richard Overton, ‘An Appeal from the Commons to the Free People’, 1647 in A. J. P. Woodhouse, ed. Puritanism and Liberty, (London, 1965), p. 325
[18] Jane Ohlmeyer, ‘Driving a Wedge Within Gaeldom: Ireland and Scotland in the Seventeenth Century’ History Ireland Vol 7 No 3 (1999) p. 30
[19] Jane Ohlmeyer, ‘Seventeenth-century Ireland and the New British and Atlantic Histories’ The American Historical Review, Vol 104 No 2 (1999) p. 451
[20] Manning, ‘The Outbreak of the English Civil War’, pp. 4-5
[21] Stoyle, Soldiers and Strangers, p. 21
[22] Stoyle, Soldiers and Strangers, p. 21
[23] Morrill, ‘Historical Introduction and Overview’, p. 5
[24] Scott, Politics and War, p. 162
[25] John Lewis, Contemplations of these times, or the parliament explained to Wales, (1646), https://archive.org/details/parliamentexpla00lewigoog p. 25
[26] Morrill, ‘Renaming England’s Wars of Religion’, p. 322
[27] The Putney Debates, General Council of the Army 28th October 1647 in Woodhouse ed. Puritanism and Liberty, (London, 1965), p. 7
[28] Adair, By The Sword Divided, p. 23
[29] ‘Civil War’ Collins English Dictionary www.collinsdictionary.com/amp/english/civil-war accessed 3/4/18 & Pocock, ‘British History’ p. 605
[30] Pocock, ‘British History’, p. 605
[31] Pocock, ‘British History’, p. 605
The Colourful Historian 