Editing English Civil War (section)

==Historical interpretations==
{{Puritans}}

===Hobbes' ''Behemoth''===
[[Thomas Hobbes]] gave an early historical account of the English Civil War in his ''[[Behemoth (Hobbes book)|Behemoth]]'', written in 1668 and published in 1681. He assessed the causes of the war to be the conflicting political doctrines of the time.{{Sfn|Hobbes|1839|p=220}} ''Behemoth'' offered a uniquely historical and philosophical approach to naming the catalysts for the war. It also attempted to explain why Charles I could not hold his throne and maintain peace in his kingdom.{{Sfn|Kraynak|1990|p=33}}

Hobbes analysed the following aspects of English thought during the war: the opinions of divinity and politics that spurred rebellion; rhetoric and doctrine used by the rebels against the king; and how opinions about "taxation, the conscription of soldiers, and military strategy" affected the outcomes of battles and shifts of sovereignty.{{Sfn|Kraynak|1990|p=33}}

Hobbes attributed the war to the novel theories of intellectuals and divines spread for their own pride of reputation.{{Sfn|Goldsmith|1966|pp=x–xiii}} He held that clerical pretensions had contributed significantly to the troubles — "whether those of puritan fundamentalists, papal supremacists or divine right Episcopalians".{{Sfn|Sommerville|2012}} Hobbes wanted to abolish the independence of the clergy and bring it under the control of the civil state.

Some scholars suggest that Hobbes's ''Behemoth'' has not received its due as an academic work, being comparatively overlooked and under-rated in the shadow of the same author's ''[[Leviathan (Hobbes book)|Leviathan]]''.{{Sfn|Kraynak|1990|p=}}{{Page needed|date=September 2016}}{{Sfn|Macgillivray|1970|p=179}} Its scholarly reputation may have suffered because it takes the form of a dialogue, which, while common in philosophy, is rarely adopted by historians. Other factors that hindered its success include Charles II's refusing its publication and Hobbes' lack of empathy with views different from his own.{{Sfn|Macgillivray|1970|p=179}}

===Whig and Marxist views===
In the early decades of the 20th century, the [[Whig history|Whig school]] was the dominant theoretical view. It explained the Civil War as resulting from centuries of struggle between Parliament (notably the House of Commons) and the Monarchy, with Parliament defending the traditional rights of Englishmen, while the Stuart monarchy continually attempted to expand its right to dictate law arbitrarily. The major Whig historian, [[Samuel Rawson Gardiner|S. R. Gardiner]], popularised the idea that the English Civil War was a "Puritan Revolution"<ref>{{Cite book |last=Burns |first=J. H. |title=Cambridge History of Political Thought 1450-1700 |date=1991 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=0521247160 |page=422}}</ref> that challenged the repressive Stuart Church and prepared the way for [[religious toleration]]. Thus, Puritanism was seen as the natural ally of a people preserving their traditional rights against arbitrary monarchical power.

The Whig view was challenged and largely superseded by the [[Marxism|Marxist]] school, which became popular in the 1940s, and saw the English Civil War as a [[bourgeois]] revolution. According to Marxist historian [[Christopher Hill (historian)|Christopher Hill]]:

{{Blockquote|The Civil War was a class war, in which the despotism of Charles I was defended by the reactionary forces of the established Church and conservative landlords, Parliament beat the King because it could appeal to the enthusiastic support of the trading and industrial classes in town and countryside, to the yeomen and progressive gentry, and to wider masses of the population whenever they were able by free discussion to understand what the struggle was really about.<ref>{{Harvnb|Kaye|1995|loc=[https://books.google.com/books?id=w6xVLvqihBoC&pg=PA106 p. 106].}} quoting from the pamphlet ''The English Revolution 1640''.</ref>}}

===Later views===
In the 1970s, [[historical revisionism|revisionist historians]] challenged both the Whig and the Marxist theories,<ref name="Burgess">{{Harvnb|Burgess|1990|pp=609–627}}</ref> notably in the 1973 anthology ''The Origins of the English Civil War'' ([[Conrad Russell]] ed.).{{Sfn|Russell|1973|p={{Page needed|date=April 2017}}}} These historians focused on the minutiae of the years immediately before the civil war, returning to the contingency-based historiography of [[Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon|Clarendon's]] ''History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England''.<ref name="Gaunt 2000 page=60">{{Harvnb|Gaunt|2000|p=60}}.</ref> This, it was claimed, demonstrated that patterns of war allegiance did not fit either Whig or Marxist theories.<ref name="Gaunt 2000 page=60"/> Parliament was not inherently progressive, nor the events of 1640 a precursor for the [[Glorious Revolution]].<ref>{{Harvnb|Gaunt|2000|pp=60–61}}</ref> Many members of the bourgeoisie fought for the King, while many landed aristocrats supported Parliament.<ref name=Burgess/>{{Failed verification|date=June 2008}}

From the 1990s, a number of historians replaced the historical title "English Civil War" with "[[Wars of the Three Kingdoms]]" and "British Civil Wars", positing that the civil war in England cannot be understood apart from events in other parts of Britain and Ireland. King Charles I remains crucial, not just as King of England, but through his relationship with the peoples of his other realms. For example, the wars began when Charles forced an Anglican Prayer Book upon Scotland, and when this was met with resistance from the [[Covenanter]]s, he needed an army to impose his will. However, this need of military funds forced Charles I to call an English Parliament, which was not willing to grant the needed revenue unless he addressed their grievances.{{Sfn|Ohlmeyer|2002}}

By the early 1640s, Charles was left in a state of near-permanent crisis management, confounded by the demands of the various factions. For example, Charles finally made terms with the Covenanters in August 1641, but although this might have weakened the position of the English Parliament, the [[Irish Rebellion of 1641]] broke out in October 1641, largely negating the political advantage he had obtained by relieving himself of the cost of the Scottish invasion.{{Sfn|Ohlmeyer|2002}}

A number of revisionist historians such as [[William M. Lamont]] regarded the conflict as a religious war, with [[John Morrill (historian)|John Morrill]] (1993) stating: 'The English Civil War was not the first European revolution: it was the last of the Wars of Religion.'{{Sfn|Burgess|1998|p=175}} This view has been criticised by various pre-, post- and anti-revisionist historians.{{Sfn|Burgess|1998|p=175}} Glen Burgess (1998) examined political propaganda written by the Parliamentarian politicians and clerics at the time, noting that many were or may have been motivated by their Puritan religious beliefs to support the war against the 'Catholic' king Charles I, but tried to express and legitimise their opposition and rebellion in terms of a legal revolt against a monarch who had violated crucial constitutional principles and thus had to be overthrown.{{Sfn|Burgess|1998|p=196–197}} They even warned their Parliamentarian allies to not make overt use of religious arguments in making their case for war against the king.{{Sfn|Burgess|1998|p=196–197}}

However, in some cases it may be argued that they hid their pro-Anglican and anti-Catholic motives behind legal parliance, for example by emphasising that the [[Church of England]] was the ''legally established'' religion: 'Seen in this light, the defences of Parliament's war, with their apparent legal-constitutional thrust, are not at all ways of saying that the struggle was not religious. On the contrary, they are ways of saying that it was.'{{Sfn|Burgess|1998|p=198–200}} Burgess concluded: '[T]he Civil War left behind it just the sort of evidence that we could reasonably expect a war of religion to leave.'{{Sfn|Burgess|1998|p=201}}