Talk:English Civil War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Government,
a WikiProject related to the government of the United Kingdom.
Archive

Archives
1

Contents

[edit] Effects in the British colonies

Should there be a section about the effects of the ECV in the British colonies (more than just Ireland)? Chiss Boy 01:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted sections

Since I last edited this page in early July there have been several; substantial deletions to the text with no discussion on the talk page about whether this information should have been deleted ( Diff between Revision as of 07:27, 3 July 2006, and Revision as of 23:12, 28 August 2006) these deletions include:

  • The section Introduction.
  • The Scottish section of the 3rd ECW.
  • The section Theories relating to the English Civil War
  • In removing Theories all the end of the article was chopped including the sections: Re-enactments, See also, and Further reading

I think the note in the header section on the War of the Three kingdoms is sufficient to cover most of what was in the section Introduction, but mention of the other names for the conflict should be restored to this article and the paragraph:

The wars led to the trial and execution of Charles I, the exile of his son Charles II, and the replacement of the English monarchy with the Commonwealth of England (1649 - 1653) and then with a Protectorate (1653 - 1659): the personal rule of Oliver Cromwell. The monopoly of the Church of England on Christian worship in England came to an end, and the victors consolidated the already-established Protestant aristocracy in Ireland. Constitutionally, the wars established a precedent that British monarchs could not govern without the consent of Parliament.

I think the Scottish section should be restored as it is usually included in accounts of the Third English Civil War. Also unless there is another page which details the Theories section I would like to restore it as it is a classic example of Historical revisionism. What do others think? --Philip Baird Shearer 11:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Broadly in agreement: it's a long article, and sections which refer to main articles might benefit from being briefer summaries. The Scottish aspect of the 3rd civil war is presumably well covered in Scottish Civil War, which could be linked as a main article for that section. The theories section looks as though it would stand well as an article on its own, with brief notes here and at the Wars of the Three Kingdoms linking to it. Re-enactmentsand Further reading should be restored (and updated), See also appears to need some expansion ...dave souza, talk 09:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Dave I agree with what you say and but until someone moves the theories section out into it's own article I think it should remain in this article. Likewise the Scottish section can be reduced, providing that the "Scottish Civil War" does at least include the same level of detail as this article. This is also true of other sections.... --Philip Baird Shearer 17:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Campaign Box

Does the English Civil War battles need a battle box like the Scottish Civil War battles have ? :

{{Campaignbox Scottish Civil War}} --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.137.109.177 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but also the English Civil War timeline needs filling out with a lot more battles. There also has to be some sort of consensus over what to include in a battle box as there were thousands of local encounters that were no more than small skirmishes that have gone down as the "battle of this and that" and are well remembered in the local areas, for example the Battle of Chalgrove Field. There are also many many sieges some of which are notable because they had a wider impact on the war, but many which are only of interest in the counties in which they happened. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

I have placed a request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for semi-protection as "this page has for a very long time been subject to vandalism by IP user(s). More edits are vandalism and rvv than anything else" --Philip Baird Shearer 10:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

That is all very well, but did you actually realise that despite you putting up the RFPP on this article, it is, according to what I just saw, already Semi'd? You are requesting page protection for an article which is already protected... Thor Malmjursson 14:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

See the time stamps, it was protected by SV after my request. Thank you SV :-) --Philip Baird Shearer 17:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with dates on English Civil War

I have a relation who is an English Civil War re-enactor, and we have some concerns about the dates of the article specifying when the English Civil Wars took place. According to my relation, the First English Civil War, was indeed from 1642 to 1645. However, there were also the Bishop wars, which kicked off all the crud with Parliament, which were from 1639 to 1640/1641.

See the article section on Terminology and the article Wars of the Three Kingdoms. Usually the start of the English Civil War is taken from the raising of the King's standard at Nottingham on 22 August 1642.

Apparently, the Second English Civil War was from about 1647 to 1650. Charles I had been in captivity for 2 years from 1645 to 1647, and escaped in 1647. Charles I was executed on January 30th, 1649. Could we please possibly get some verification on this, and get the article as close to accurate as possible. Thanks Thor Malmjursson 19:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Whether one argues that there were only two civil wars or three is open to debate although few would argue that the English Civil War ended at the Battle of Worcester 3 September, 1651. As to the dates for the second civil war, I am of the opinion that if one accepts that there was more than one phase — because there was a lull in the fighting between the first and the second phases — then surly the recapture of Charles I and his execution marks a lull between for second and third phases?
So the date of the Start of the English Civil war is usually taken to be 22 August, 1642, and the end 3 September, 1651. How one divides the other bits is not set in stone and is open to debate with different people holding different opinions on the matter. But one thing is for sure having the war divided into three phases is not a Wikipedia invention, see for example: The Third Civil War 1649-51. This UK government site acknowledges that the second civil war was fought in 1668, and says lower down the page "Cromwell took his army to Scotland, but Charles II responded by invading England. The two sides met in a great battle at Worcester in 1651. This campaign is sometimes known as the third civil war." If the campaign is not known as the third civil war then what name should we give to the campaign? I think that looking at these two articles ([1] [2]) as examples, that dividing the war into only two phases called wars is not a clear as dividing it into 3 phases called wars--Philip Baird Shearer 01:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Show Trial?

It is simply ahistorical to call the trial of Charles I of England a "show trial". This implies the result was pre-ordained. Whilst this reflects the view of many historians of late, recent research shows that the trial was one of the first to be organised following modern English concepts of jurisprudence, including various innovations that were not to be formally embraced for some two centuries. Geoffrey Robertson's recent book, "The Tyrannicide Brief" is an excellent source of this new historical analysis. However, to make any comparison between the trial of Charles I and the trials staged by Stalin is an affront and simply inaccurate and poor scholarship. Fc1922 06:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC) fc1922, 15 December 2006.

[edit] Cavaliers and Roundheads?

The terms Roundhead and Cavalier are the insulting names chosen by each side for the other side. Surely the NPOV terms for the two sides in this conflict should be Royalists and Parliamentarians? --RichardVeryard 15:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

No, The terms are no longer insulting, for a contemporary example, is the term Tory insulting to a member of the Conservative party? Both sides supported the King and Parliament. The Roundheads just did not like the Kings advisers and nearly half of the members of Parliament supported the King. To imply that it was simply a split between supporters of absolute monarchy and supporters of "parliamentary sovereignty"/republicanism is a gross simplification.
Further the terms were used about the other side at the time of the war and its aftermath and can be found in contemporary records eg The Protector's Instructions to General Disbrowe where its use is not pejorative but in the same way as the modern meaning. Wikipedia is not alone in using the terms, a quick Google on both articles and book titles shows this. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)UTC)
I am uncomfortable about two aspects of Philip's argument. (1) Firstly I don't agree with the suggestion that NPOV doesn't apply because the terms are "no longer insulting". The fact that a term was once insulting means that there is still a POV implicit in the term, even if the people who held this POV are long dead. I accept that "Tory" is no longer insulting, but it was once, and I should not wish to see WP using the term as if it were merely an NPOV synonym for the Conservative Party. In one place in this article, the use of the word Cavalier seems to be an attempt at elegant variation, which I think WP should probably avoid. (2) Secondly, I think that "Wikipedia is not alone in using the terms" is never a valid defence, since few other websites have as exacting standards as WP. The Internet is riddled with incorrect, misleading, biased and sometimes extremely insulting terminology, and Google can sometimes find you the worst examples of this. (3) I do appreciate Philip's point that the "official" terms (Royalist, Parliamentarian) are not strictly accurate, and so perhaps there is some POV implicit in these terms as well, but I should say this is the lesser evil. --RichardVeryard 00:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
What is the negative POV that is implicit in the terms Cavalier and Roundhead? When I wrote that Wikipedia is not alone in using the term, I was not referring to blog sites but as I wrote to "articles and books" which are considered by Wikipedia to be within WP:V, i.e. to use the terms is neither original research, or coining a neologism. The terms Royalist and Parliamentarian are no more official than Cavalier and Roundhead so why are the former the lesser of two evils? --Philip Baird Shearer 01:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
What is the negative POV? I quote from the WP article on Cavalier: '"Cavalier" is chiefly associated with the Royalist supporters of King Charles I in his struggle with Parliament in the English Civil War. Here again it first appears as a term of reproach and contempt, applied by the opponents of the king. ... These derogatory terms (for at the time they were so intended) ...'
And I am aware that lots of articles and books use the terms Cavalier and Roundhead. Indeed, these were the terms that I learned when I was at school. I was merely objecting to the idea that "a quick Google" is a satisfactory way of resolving something like this.
In any case, I think this is generally an excellent article, and I merely propose to make a couple of small changes to improve clarity and to remove one instance of elegant variation. --RichardVeryard 01:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Glad to see someone has read one of my additions to this Encyclopaedia (March 2006) :-) But I also added "It was soon adopted (as a title of honour) by the king's party, who in return applied Roundhead to their opponents, and at the Restoration the court party preserved the name, which survived till the rise of the term Tory." The source for this addition was the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

English Civil War
Date 1642 – 1651
Location England, Wales, Ireland
Result Replacement of monarchy with Commonwealth of England
Combatants
Royalists (Cavaliers) Parliamentarians (Roundheads)
Commanders
King Charles I ↑ Oliver Cromwell

I have problems with his box. For example it is debatable if the wars In Ireland (and Scotland (which is not mentioned)) are part of the English Civil War. Also commanders seems to be too simplistic, implies they were two captains of a sports team, when in reality there were a number of commanders on both sides and their influence varied over time. This is particularity true on the Parliamentary side where the modern idea separating the army commanders from the civilian leaders was far more developed than was common during this period. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/n/g/Talk%7EEnglish_Civil_War_baa4.html"