h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Well what do you know I've just read 5 books in 3 days to prepare for my essay 'What value does a three kingdom perspective have in understanding English, Irish or Scottish history 1637-1660' and I spot this one on Hootoo.

Its late now, I'll get on Cromwell's case tomorrow .

look forward to it

The Civil War is starting on Channel 4 on Thursday at 9 pm.

The Levellers certainly were primarily a religious group (non-Calvinist, non-conformist). They got involved in constitutional politics because first the House of Lords, then the House of Commons locked them up. By this point they were supporting the Army. The Army opened talks with them, made an agreement, purged Parliament then ignored the agreement and eventually locked up the leading levellers.

Cromwell was basically tolerant of Protestents and Jews only.

He also played his part in the hysteria over the invented threats of the Catholic plot and the Ranters who were used to justify the restrictive Blasphemy Act.

He was as much a dictator in his role as Lord Protector as he would have been as King. Even so, it is probably only radical Army opposition that stopped him, hence why he took so long over his decision, and declared on at least two occasions that he intended to accept the crown.

See also his repeated references to some of the wars' bloodiest moments as being glorious and the will of God, and his dehumanising of opponents.

It should also be noted that Charles I was essentially a soft touch. He never had anyone executed until Parliament forced him to sign Strafford's death warrant "the first blood of the civil war". There is also plenty of evidence that Charles' refusal to call parliament in the 1630s was in response to parliament's refusal to allow him to fix the country's financial and military systems, in a shamble since Elizabeth, in the 1620s. Charles' treatment of the Scottish prevents him from being any sort of figure of tolerance himself though.

<>

he may not have personally demanded anyones death but it was the standard penalty for a wide variety of of offences in his reign

he certainly supported Lauds persecution of Puritans and the Star Chamber chopped John Lilburns ears off on his authority

I tend to agree with the very first post - I've always felt that way myself. Cromwell was forced into the execution of Charles I, but then Charles totally believed in the monarchy having 'divine right'. Strong beliefs can be very destructive.

Cromwell's wife & daughter were definitely not fearful of wearing lace & ribbons, although his wife was basic enough to write down her own recipes - I have a modern day printed 'Mrs Cromwell's Cookbook'!

I've always thought that Cromwell's son, Richard, was unable to 'fill his father's shoes' and hence there was totally anarchy. Therefore, Charles II was actually 'asked' to return to England, but under new rules, as previously stated.

Cromwell's own regime did not fare too well: one reason I can think of was that he hadn't the money to pay his soldiers. A 'union' called the 'Levellers' were formed, "Soldier's rights, soldier's pay", they wore green ribbons around their arms to show they were part of this group of dissatisfied soldiers.

Did you know that the cobblers of Northamptonshire made the soldiers' boots for the Parliamentarians - but there was no profit as hardly any of them got paid.

So, Cromwell had managed to topple the monarchy (which I totally agree needed to be done at THAT time) & take on the governing of the country, but had little money to do so. Surely that proves that on the whole the people wanted to see the back of Charles I too?

Apologies if I've garbled - I just write as the words come to me

Parliamentarian forces started with London & the South-East and managed to extract more taxes from this area than the King got from the rest of the country.

If Charles had been totally unpopular there wouldn't have been a civil war, because he wouldn't have found anyone to fight for him. As it was he turned out much more suited to leading a party than 3 countries.

Non-political executions under Charles did continue as per James I & VI's laws, but was enforced even more leniently. The ear chopping off thing was badly received, but it should be remembered that he had that sentence commuted from death. He was authoritarian, not cruel, and in the end Cromwell was just as authoritarian, following the same pattern of dissolving parliaments or fighting against those who didn't do what he wanted them to.

That Cromwell was also a great concilliator and respected people of almost all denominations as long as they were pious and ascetic (so not Catholics or Arminians then) is also a separate issue.

Heh, looks like my history tutor has a pretty major part in the program tonight, go Ronald!

Sadly I missed the prog.
*Continues to examine thread with interest*

Saw the programme, it was pretty good. They did it in the style of those WWI and WWII documentaries you always see, with black and white footage of re-enactors and freeze frame 'photographs'. Made the whole thing seem more, well, real.

I didn't like it particularly although it was interesting. It made it look the US Civil war to me which i found irritating...

It didn't focus enough on the build up enough for me. The causes of a war are often as important as the war itself.

Where does the statement 'there were only four people in England who knew how to fire a cannon' come from?
Frankly I don't believe this.
Surely we had a navy at least, then and there must still have been veterans of the wars in the Netherlands and against Spain knocking about.

<>
Proably because the actual build up would fill a two-hour programme by itself, although I do agree that they should have mentioned it a bit more as the programme kind of gave the impression that the war just started out of nowhere.

<>

The word you're missing there is 'mortar', you don't generally get mortars on ships. This does seems like a slightly dubious figure, although at the time there was no such thing as a standing army in the British Isles so the lack of expertise isn't completely implausable.

Anyway, I enjoyed the programme immensely and found it very informative (My main area of interest is how it affected Scotland and Ireland thus there are gaps in my knowledge of the war in England itself!).

Ah mortar, fair enough. Still it seems to be playing with statistics a little to come up with a silly figure to prove a point that didn't really need proving if you ask me.

An extra episode devoted to the causes wouldn't have hurt if you ask me. They seemed to be saying, newspapers came along, they lied about the king and his papist wife, everyone believed it...war.

I just didn't particularly like its style really. Just a question of taste.

Hell, whatever your opinion on the programme at least the battle scenes were better than the usual "close up of 5 blokes scuffling with lots of overdubbed shouting which the viewer is supposed to believe is really part of a huge battle."

As an aside, what were the major effects of the English Civil War on Scotland?
Something I know very little about and I'm always keen to hear about north of the border as my parents are Scots. I'm aware that there were some decisive intervensions by the Scots in the North that turned the tide against the King but I've not really any knowledge of how the aftermath affected them.

Errr... Now I actually come to tell anybody about Scots involvement in the Civil War it seems to have fallen out of my brain, but I'll do my best.

A bunch of people signed the Solemn League and Covenant which was basically a petition asking for various rights for the Scots, most important of which was the right to have their own church (Presbytarian) as they weren't happy about the whole Common Prayer thing. The king refused to meet the Covenanters' demands (even though the petition made it clear that they would remain loyal to the king), this led to a 'cold' civil war known as the Bishops' War.

When the Civil War proper began the parliamentarians signed an agreement with the Covenanters whereby England would recognise and adopt Presbytarianism in return for the help of the Scots in the war.
The Marquis of Montrose (whose signiature appears second or third on the Covenant) was unhappy with this and declared full loyalty to the crown and turned his back on the Presbytarian church.

Eventually the parliamentarians and the Scots fell out and Cromwell invaded Scotland.

Famous Regiments included MacColla's Lifeguard of Horse and the Strathbogie Regiment. Highlanders fought on both sides. Err... my family were Montrose royalists (the best known being Colonel Donald Farqhuarson of Monaltries).
There's a Guide Entry about the Covenant: A356843

Hmm, actually it seems I did know more than I thought, I've defintiely seen some of that before. Or at least forgotten more than I'd thought...

Cheers anyway.

So you have a Clan you can belong too
My family come from Clan docker of Strathclyde

<>

Yep, technically we're McKerrachers which is now only recognised as a sept of Clan Farqhuarson, but since Farqhuarson is merely the Anglicised version of Mac Fearchair (which over time became corrupted to McKerracher) I think we win.

Well technically my family name (Miller) is a sept of the MacFarlane clan but seeing as Miller is about as common a name as Smith is in england I kind of doubt the validity.