June 2015 Flashcards
(3 cards)
‘Parliament was victorious in the First Civil War because it controlled London.’
Assess the validity of this view of the years 1642 to 1646.
Students will need to assess/identify and evaluate/explain the importance of London to Parliament’s victory and balance this against other factors. They may also consider the weaknesses of the Royalists balanced against Parliament’s strengths.
Students may refer to some of the following material in support of the importance of London: • centre of finance • centre of administration • centre of government • source of manpower • source of industry • key centre of printing • centre of Puritanism • key port • strategic location.
Nevertheless, there are a number of other factors to consider:
• the importance of the relative financial resources and administration of each side. Parliament controlled London, East Anglia and the south east, whereas the royalists controlled the more agrarian regions of the north, west and Wales.
• the influence of the County Committees, e.g. Pyne in Somerset, the Puritan ‘boss’ of the county enabled Parliament to make more of its resources and ruthlessly exploit taxes such as the Excise and Assessment
• The different cultural approach of the two sides in terms of approaches to the war – the amateur ‘Cavalier’ approach of some of the royalists in comparison to the dedicated approach of Puritans like Pym or Pyne
• the poor leadership of Charles I in terms of communication, decision-making and lack of physical presence as a warrior king
• the impact of foreign support, the limited impact it made for the royalists in comparison to the results of the Solemn League and Covenant or work of Dutch engineers for Parliament. Some may set this in the context of the shared Puritanism of the groups involved. Some may refer to the negative impact of Charles’ communication with the Catholic Irish and French
Furthermore, students may refer to:
• divisions among the Royalist command, between Constitutional Royalists like Hyde and more hard-line individuals like Henerietta-Maria or Prince Rupert
• geographical divisions of the Royalist command with 3 main areas of operations, Oxford, Bristol and York
• The amateur approach of Prince Rupert who took his poodle in to battle with him in comparison to the bible carrying Cromwell who imposed ruthless discipline on his troops
• influence of Puritanism as a dynamic, including the role of motivated Puritan individuals such as Pym, Holles or others at the centre of Parliament’s war effort ensured that they were ruthlessly efficient in prosecuting the war
• the impact of religion on morale in battle, particularly stressed by the expert on the New Model, Ian Gentles as a key determinant in motivated the godly among the Eastern Association and New Model
• religious influence of Eastern Association and New Model Army, illustrated by examples like banners, prayer meetings – all indicating the puritan influence that motivated them to fight
• impact through key generals, Cromwell, Ireton and Harrison, particularly their providential millenarianism deriving from their Puritan position that made them influential leaders in the Eastern Association and then the New Model that had a core that regarded themselves as an ‘army of saints’
• Religious radicals like Cromwell, Ireton and Harrison led their troops in to battle from the front and set a positive motivating example to their soldiers
• influence of regimental chaplains, e.g. Puritans like Hugh Peter, who took a leading active role in the fighting
In conclusion, students may:
• consider the weaknesses of the Royalists
• strength of the Parliamentarians
• illustrate the link between the two elements, pointing out that over time the weaknesses and
strengths of each side became more pronounced as the war became more drawn out. This enabled Parliament to make more use of its greater resources, particularly as a result of their control of London which was confirmed by their defence of it at Turnham Green in Nov 1642
• The millenarian Puritanism of key figures in the parliamentarian war effort gave them the impetus to make the most of their greater resources
‘The Restoration Settlement was a short term success, but a long term failure.’
Assess the validity of this view of the years 1660 to 1685.
Students will need to assess/identify and evaluate/explain how the Restoration Settlement could be seen as a short term success and balance this against problems over time. They may also consider Charles’ immediate short term failures and the context for judging success of the Settlement.
Students may refer to some of the following material in support of short term success of the Restoration Settlement: • the land settlement • the church settlement • disbanding the New Model Army • the constitutional settlement • the financial settlement.
Nevertheless, there are a number of other factors to consider, particularly in relation to longer term failures:
• the continuing tension caused by the ambiguity of the religious settlement and the position of dissenters throughout the period 1660–1685
• the tension caused by anti-Catholicism, particularly illustrated by the Exclusion Crisis, 1678–1683, illustrates the long term failure of the religious settlement
• the tension over finances with parliament illustrated throughout the period and particularly clear in the 1670s shows the limits of the financial settlement
• Charles’ immediate success was based on a willingness to accept the Restoration which deteriorated after 1665 as the Tory-Anglicans became more assertive and the Whigs more desirous of change.
Furthermore, students may consider the short term failings in elements of the Restoration Settlement:
• the alienation of the royalists due to elements of the land settlement
• the Cavalier Parliament’s shaping of a more narrow church settlement than Charles wanted
• the limits of the financial settlement being clear at the time of the settlement.
In conclusion, students may argue that:
• Charles dealt pragmatically with immediate practical issues
• Charles failed to deal with the fundamental underlying tensions of the early modern period
• Charles was successful when judging against his own limited aims
• Charles was successful when set in the context of other Stuart and Tudor monarchs failing to deal with the financial and religious weaknesses of the early modern state (1536 to 1688)
• the period 1681–1685 may be used to show both the strengths and weaknesses of the
Crown’s position.
‘The Glorious Revolution was neither ‘glorious’ nor a ‘revolution’.’ Assess the validity of this view.
Students will need to assess/identify and evaluate/explain how far the events of 1688–1689 were a revolution and to what extent it could be considered ‘Glorious’.
Students may refer to some of the following material in support of the events of 1688–1689 actually being a limited revolution:
• the role and motivation of opposition in England, focusing particularly on removing James II because of his Catholicism and policies since 1685 rather than seeking significant political reform or revolution
• the dependence of William on the English political elite for his success because of the limited nature of their goals and opposition since 1685
• the central role of William of Orange and his limited motivation for political change
• the number of foreign troops brought and remaining in England as an example of 1688–89
as a foreign coup or invasion rather than a revolution
• the European war was the motivation for William’s invasion of England, rather than being motivated by English domestic concerns, and thus there was no directed political agenda for change from leading figure
• the nature of change in 1688–1689 as a sign of a foreign takeover
• the limits of change in 1688–1689 indicating that the Glorious Revolution was still very much shaped by the English elite for whom William was a necessary figurehead in a new relationship between Crown and Parliament, the political nation
• 1688–1689 seen as a conservative led moderate constitutional change
• Tory reaction 1685-89 and comment on the nature of James’ withdrawal may be referenced as another example of the limits of revolution
• the role of Parliament and political elite in shaping the settlement indicates lack of revolution but directed limited change by those who already held power but through William now confirmed their power more formally as Personal Monarchy moved more towards constitutional monarchy
• reference may be made to the lack of social change as the ‘centre’ remained in control of the power
• reference may be made to the alienation of the true radicals, e.g. republicans etc., by the limited nature of the settlement
Nevertheless, there are a number of other factors to consider:
• the events of 1688–1689 can be seen as a ‘revolution of the centre’, the political elite taking control due to their alienation because of James’s policies since 1685
• removal of the divine right monarch was revolutionary
• questioning of James’ authority had revolutionary implications for property rights
• 1688–1689 establishes constitutional monarchy, specific reference could be made to:
no Catholic was to inherit the throne
no king could marry a Catholic
no standing army
no ecclesiastical commissions
suspending and dispensing powers of the monarch declared unconstitutional
Parliament had to consent to all taxation.
• financial settlement has serious constitutional implications
• William’s European focus leads to increased parliamentary influence
• seen as Glorious by the political elite as they assert their authority – a Whig revolution. Furthermore, students may argue that forces for change were not revolutionary:
• consider the failures of James from 1685 and how they created discontent
• the failures of James in 1688 which allowed a foreign coup/invasion to be successful
• the influence of the political elite in 1688 in shaping the settlement
• 1688 seen therefore more as a coup or foreign invasion than a revolution
• that despite the alienation caused by James’ policies since 1685 it was not until June 1688
with the birth of his son and the intervention of William that change was brought about, indicating the limited revolutionary impulse among the political nation until they felt the real threat of continued Catholic rule and the absolutism that would bring
In conclusion, students may refer to:
• James’ policies since 1685 alienated the elite and therefore created discontent that enabled William to be invited and lead a successful foreign invasion. 1688-89 could therefore be seen as a coup with an invasion that led to a revolution in the relationship between Crown and Parliament particularly because of the financial revolution that came as a result of William’s European agenda
• the alienated elite invited William to invade based on their growing opposition to James’ policies since 1685 and therefore conducted a coup to invite a foreign invasion to initiate change
• that while there were some significant changes in 1688–1689 there were limits to the extent of these changes.
