You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
The English Civil War was the most traumatic rupture in early modern English history. For the first time, a king and his Parliament raised armies against each other; the war divided counties, towns, and families; and it killed, in proportion to population, a higher share of the English people than the First World War would three centuries later. It ended with the king a prisoner and would culminate, in 1649, in the unprecedented public execution of an anointed monarch. Understanding why such a conflict broke out — and what kind of conflict it was — is the single most contested problem in the field, and the one most likely to anchor an exam question.
The lesson has two distinct tasks. The first is narrative and analytical: to trace how the Long Parliament dismantled the Personal Rule with near-unanimity, then fractured over the question of how far to go; how the Irish Rebellion and the militia crisis converted a constitutional stand-off into civil war; and how the war was won by the side that built a more professional, better-funded military machine, culminating in the New Model Army. The second task is historiographical, because no topic in this option has generated a richer debate. The Whig tradition (Gardiner) saw a long constitutional struggle for liberty; the Marxist tradition (Hill, Manning) saw a class conflict — a "bourgeois revolution"; the revisionists (Russell, Morrill) denied any "high road to civil war" and stressed short-term, even accidental, breakdown; and the post-revisionists (Hughes, Cust) sought to rescue long-term tensions while accepting that the outbreak itself was contingent. A strong candidate must navigate all four.
Key Question: Did the Civil War break out because of deep, long-term tensions — constitutional, religious, social — that made conflict structurally likely, or because of short-term contingencies (the Scottish and Irish crises, the collapse of trust, Charles's miscalculations) without which war need never have come?
Summoned in financial desperation after the Bishops' Wars, the Long Parliament — which would, in altered forms, sit until 1660 — moved at once to dismantle the apparatus of the Personal Rule. John Pym emerged as its dominant manager.
| Measure | Date | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Triennial Act | February 1641 | Parliament must meet at least every three years, with machinery to assemble it even without a royal summons — outlawing another Personal Rule |
| Act against Dissolution | May 1641 | The Long Parliament could not be dissolved without its own consent — an extraordinary entrenchment exacted during the Strafford crisis |
| Attainder and execution of Strafford | May 1641 | Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford, Charles's most formidable minister, was destroyed by Act of Attainder when impeachment faltered. Charles signed the death warrant under duress and popular pressure — a betrayal of a loyal servant that haunted him to the scaffold |
| Abolition of Star Chamber | July 1641 | The prerogative court abolished — dismantling a pillar of the Personal Rule |
| Abolition of High Commission | July 1641 | The ecclesiastical prerogative court abolished, curbing royal control over religious conformity |
| Ship Money declared illegal | August 1641 | Non-parliamentary taxation outlawed and the Hampden judgment reversed |
| Tonnage and Poundage / forest and knighthood fines | 1641 | Customs duties tied to parliamentary consent; the financial expedients of the 1630s undone |
These reforms passed with near-unanimous support: almost everyone agreed the Personal Rule must never recur. The decisive point — and the key to the war's outbreak — is that consensus dissolved the moment the question shifted from undoing the past to controlling the future.
The Grand Remonstrance was a sweeping catalogue of Charles's misgovernment since 1625 — over 200 clauses — coupled with demands that pushed far beyond dismantling the Personal Rule.
| Aspect | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Content | A historical indictment of the reign — evil counsellors, Laudian religion, financial exactions, foreign-policy failures — plus demands for parliamentary approval of ministers and for further religious reform |
| Vote | Passed by only 159 to 148 — the narrowest of margins, with debate so heated that members nearly came to blows |
| Significance | The split revealed a new Royalist party forming. Many who had cheered the reforms of 1641 recoiled from demands that Parliament control the militia, vet ministers, and reshape the Church — they now saw Parliament, not the king, as the innovator and the greater threat |
| Pym's strategy | Pym had the Remonstrance printed and addressed to the people — an unprecedented appeal over the king's head to public opinion, which Royalists denounced as inflammatory and unconstitutional |
Historiographical Debate: The causes of the Civil War are the most debated topic in early modern English history.
- Whig (Gardiner): a long constitutional struggle of parliamentary liberty against royal absolutism — the culmination of decades of tension.
- Marxist (Christopher Hill, Brian Manning): a "bourgeois revolution" in which a rising gentry and urban middling sort challenged a decaying feudal-aristocratic order; Manning stressed the role of the "middle sort of people."
- Revisionist (Conrad Russell, John Morrill): no long-term "high road." Russell stressed short-term "functional breakdown" and the problem of governing three kingdoms; Morrill argued England backed into a war of religion. Without the Scottish and Irish crises, no war.
- Post-revisionist (Ann Hughes, Richard Cust): long-term tensions (religious, constitutional, social, the politics of "popularity") were real and created the conditions for conflict, even though the precise outbreak was contingent. Hughes's The Causes of the English Civil War (1991) is the classic synthesis.
The Irish Rebellion transformed a constitutional crisis into a military emergency — and the timing, days before the Grand Remonstrance debate, was catastrophic for trust.
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| Event | Catholic Irish, fearing the militantly anti-Catholic English Parliament, rose against Protestant settlers in Ulster. Lurid and wildly inflated reports (claims of up to 200,000 Protestants slain; the real toll, though grim, was far lower) swept England and inflamed anti-popery |
| The militia problem | An army was plainly needed to reconquer Ireland — but who would command it? Parliament dared not trust Charles with an army it feared he would turn against itself; Charles could not surrender command without gutting the prerogative. The Irish rising thus made the control of armed force the unavoidable issue |
| The Militia Ordinance (1642) | Parliament claimed, by ordinance (without royal assent), the right to appoint the lords lieutenant who controlled the county militias — a direct seizure of a core prerogative that Charles answered with Commissions of Array. Two rival systems of mobilisation now existed |
Charles entered the House of Commons in person, with armed men at the door, to seize five leading members — Pym, Hampden, Denzil Holles, Arthur Haselrig and William Strode — together with Lord Mandeville. Forewarned, they had fled by river. Charles's rueful admission that "the birds have flown" was a double disaster: it failed, and it confirmed every fear that the king would use force against Parliament. London turned decisively hostile, and within days Charles abandoned his capital. The breach was now beyond mending.
flowchart TD
A[Long-term factors] --> B[Constitutional tensions: prerogative vs. parliamentary rights]
A --> C[Religious divisions: Laudianism, Puritanism, fear of Catholicism]
A --> D[Financial problems: Crown revenue insufficient without Parliament]
E[Short-term triggers] --> F[Scottish crisis forced recall of Parliament]
E --> G[Irish Rebellion created need for an army — but who controls it?]
E --> H[Charles's attempted arrest of the Five Members destroyed trust]
B --> I[Civil War]
C --> I
D --> I
F --> I
G --> I
H --> I
After failed negotiations (the Nineteen Propositions of June 1642, which would have reduced Charles to a figurehead, were rejected), Charles raised his standard at Nottingham on 22 August 1642. War had come not because either side willed it from the start, but because the collapse of trust left no peaceful means of resolving the question of where ultimate authority — over the militia, the Church, and the ministers of state — actually lay.
A-Level Tip: "Why did the Civil War break out?" demands engagement with the historiography, not a list of causes. The strongest answers weigh long-term and short-term factors against each other, deploying Gardiner, Hill, Russell, Morrill and Hughes — and usually conclude that long-term tensions created the conditions while short-term events supplied the triggers and the breakdown of trust that made compromise impossible.
| Royalists (Cavaliers) | Parliamentarians (Roundheads) |
|---|---|
| Defended the king's prerogative and the established episcopal Church | Sought parliamentary control of the militia, ministers, and religious reform |
| Strongest in the north, west, and Wales — poorer, more pastoral regions | Strongest in the south-east, East Anglia, London, and the ports — wealthier and more populous |
| Initially superior cavalry under Prince Rupert of the Rhine | Controlled the navy (denying the king easy foreign supply) and the realm's richest tax base |
| Relied on aristocratic loyalty and traditional military service | Could draw on London's wealth and a more systematic taxation (the excise, from 1643) |
The deeper Parliamentary advantages — the capital, the navy, the customs, and the willingness to tax — meant that in a long war the side able to sustain armies would prevail. The 1643 alliance with the Scottish Covenanters (the Solemn League and Covenant, which committed Parliament to a broadly Presbyterian settlement in exchange for a Scottish army) tilted the balance decisively in the north.
| Battle | Date | Outcome | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Edgehill | 23 October 1642 | Indecisive, though the Royalists held the field | Showed the war would not be won at a stroke; Charles failed to march on London thereafter |
| Marston Moor | 2 July 1644 | Decisive Parliamentary/Scottish victory | Lost Charles the whole north of England; Cromwell's disciplined cavalry ("Ironsides") proved themselves and announced him as a commander |
| Naseby | 14 June 1645 | Decisive New Model Army victory | Destroyed the king's main field army. The capture of his cabinet of correspondence (later published as The King's Cabinet Opened) exposed his attempts to bring in Irish Catholic and foreign troops — a propaganda catastrophe |
Created early in 1645, the New Model Army was a professional, national force that transformed both the war and the politics that followed it.
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| Creation | Established by ordinance, with the Self-Denying Ordinance (April 1645) removing members of both Houses from command. Sir Thomas Fairfax became Lord General; Oliver Cromwell was retained, by exception, as Lieutenant-General of Horse |
| Discipline and pay | Professional, drilled, and (crucially) more regularly paid through national taxation — a standing force rather than a patchwork of regional levies |
| Religion | Strongly Puritan, and tolerant of Independents, Baptists and other sects within its ranks. It became a crucible of radical religious and political ideas — soon a danger to its own paymasters in Parliament |
| Political impact | The army emerged as an autonomous political actor, eventually more powerful than Parliament — an unprecedented and profoundly destabilising development that drives the events of 1647–49 |
By requiring members of Parliament to lay down their commands, the Self-Denying Ordinance removed aristocratic amateurs such as the Earls of Essex and Manchester — whose half-hearted prosecution of the war (Manchester reportedly fearing that beating the king once would not end matters) had frustrated the war party. Command now went to professionals chosen for competence rather than rank: a genuine, if pragmatic, revolution in English military organisation.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.