Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΜύ permalink

Civil Wars

• Message 1.Μύ

  Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Saturday, 17th December 2005

  It has always seemed strange to me that a set of wars that started in Scotland and then Ireland and ended up in Scotland and Ireland and in which more people died in Ireland than anywhere else should be primarily graced by the name the English Civil War. The wars could be said to have started in Scotland in 1639 and ended in Scotland in 1653 but far more people died in Ireland than in England and Scotland put together. They should perhaps be better characterised as the Wars of the Three Kingdoms
  
  The conflict involved a number of conflicts but can perhaps be divided into the following:
  
  1639 1st Bishops war Conflict in Scotland between Scottish Royalists and Covenanters.
  1640 2nd Bishops War A professional Scottish army defeats an English rabble at Newburn and occupies Newcastle.
  1641 – 1648 Irish Catholic Revolt leads to war against Irish Protestants, a Royal English army, Scottish Covenanters and later Parliamentarian English
  1642 – 1647 English Civil War between Parliament and the Royalists with the war being decided first by the intervention of a large Scottish Covenanter army and then the formation of the New Model Army.
  1644 – 1646 Montrose’s war. James Graham Earl of Montrose leads an Irish Catholic and Highland army against the Scottish Covenanters.
  1648 Renewed Royalist Covenanter conflict in Scotland
  1648 2nd Civil War The New Model Army takes on the Welsh, Royalists, the Navy and a major Scottish invasion and defeats the lot.
  1649 – 1653 New Model Army conquers Ireland.
  1650 Renewed Royalist Covenanter conflict in Scotland.
  1650 – 1653 The Scots declare Charles II king of Scotland and England leading to renewed war between England and Scotland and the conquest of Scotland.
  
  There are probably a few others I have missed.
  
  The estimated losses are (taken from Trevor Royle – The War of the Three Kingdoms)
  
  England 85,000 military deaths and 40,000 war related civilian deaths. Out of a population of 5 million that makes 2.5% of the population compared to a bit above 2% for the two world wars combined for GB as a whole.
  
  Scotland 28,000 military deaths and 15,000 war related civilian deaths. To this should be added about 30,000 Scottish prisoners from Preston, Dunbar and Worcester who were shipped to English colonies as virtual slaves of which very few came back. Out of a population of 1 million, about 7.5%.
  
  Estimates of Irish deaths range from an appalling 192,000 to a truly cataclysmic 618,000. I do not know what the population of Ireland was at the time but even the lowest figure is more than England and Scotland combined, perhaps Oz if he reads this could add the information, and a population of around 2 million would, with the lower figure suggest 10% of the population and 30% if the upper figure was correct. I would note that, Drogheda and Wexford notwithstanding, Cromwell was only responsible for a small percentage of those Irish losses.
  
  
  
  

  Link to this forum: Civil Wars

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Mark (U2073932) on Tuesday, 20th December 2005

  It's probably called the ECW because the Kind was English and the government being based in England and London. Also because as always us English we're more important and stronger than the othe three nations.
  Probably!

  Link to this forum: Civil Wars

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by Mark (U2073932) on Tuesday, 20th December 2005

  Obviously i meant we english "think" we're more important etc etc

  Link to this forum: Civil Wars

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Wednesday, 21st December 2005

  The term "English civil war" is the one in common usage. However, having studied this period last year as part of my degree course, I can certainly say that the academics referred to in my course generally refer to the "British civil wars", sometimes to the "British revolution".
  
  Part of the problem is that the emphasis of the fighting did move to England during the middle period, and the majority of people affected were English.

  Link to this forum: Civil Wars

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Wednesday, 21st December 2005

  Redcoat,
  
  Charles Stuart was Scottish, not English...

  Link to this forum: Civil Wars

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Wednesday, 21st December 2005

  Mani,
  
  Interesting point about the King's nationality.
  
  James I was Scottish, born and bred. After he moved to England the monarchs rarely visited Scotland. Did they feel particulary Scottish ? I doubt that. Dynasty was more important than nationality. Their power base was England.

  Link to this forum: Civil Wars

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Wednesday, 21st December 2005

  Hi Tim,
  
  I'd go off where he was born (Fife in Scotland), where his family were from (Scotland), and in his case, his strong Scottish accent

  Link to this forum: Civil Wars

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Wednesday, 21st December 2005

  I would agree that James VI definately was Scot by accent and outlook, despite having an English father and grandmother. Caharles I, however, though born in Scotland, lived virtually all his life in England and I would say had an English outlook. Charles II was, I believe only in Scotland during 1650 to 1651.
  
  

  Link to this forum: Civil Wars

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 8.

  Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Wednesday, 21st December 2005

  I'd heard it described as the war of three Kingdoms although which three needs a bit of further information.

  Link to this forum: Civil Wars

  Report message9

• Message 10

  , in reply to message 8.

  Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Thursday, 22nd December 2005

  Hui Tim,
  
  form what I've read at the time, Charles spoke with a broad scottish accent, I can only pressume that this came from more than temporary residence there....

  Link to this forum: Civil Wars

  Report message10

• Message 11

  , in reply to message 8.

  Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Thursday, 22nd December 2005

  I would agree that James VI definately was Scot by accent and outlook, despite having an English father and grandmother. Caharles I, however, though born in Scotland, lived virtually all his life in England and I would say had an English outlook. Charles II was, I believe only in Scotland during 1650 to 1651.
  
  Μύ
  
  For further proof of Charles I's Englishness, see his attempt to introduce English forms of worship and the fact that he elected to use an English coronation ceremony, held at Edinburgh, when crowned King of Scotland, not a Scottish ceremony, held at Scone, to be crowned King of Scots.
  
  In answer to you're original question, the focus was for a long time on English events: the conflict between the English Parliment and its King, the battles in England and so on. It is only relatively recently that historians have started to look to the historical roots of the Wars in the Bishops Wars and even in Ireland, and the significance of the other two Kingdoms - and even further afield (recent work has been done on the impact of the Wars in the Channel Islands and the American Colonies). But TimTrack is right in saying that 'British Civil Wars' or Revolution is more common in academic circles. I'm sure you know how long things often take to transmit to the public eye for academia.

  Link to this forum: Civil Wars

  Report message11

• Message 12

  , in reply to message 10.

  Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Thursday, 22nd December 2005

  Hello Mani
  
  I cannot find anything about Charles speach other than he spoke with a stammer but he was born in 1600 and so spent from 1600 to 1604 in Scotland (he did not travel doswn in 1603 because of ill health) and then basically the rest of his life in England, not returning until 1633 for his coronation as king of Scotland, which was carried out by Scottish bishops but wearing English vestments. I agree that James had a lot of Scots at his court but he was not that taken by his that coourt and its behaviour. He was brought up by Sir Robert Carey and his wife Elizabeth, I have not checked if they are English but their name sounds mopre English than Scots and his first love was George Villiers, English.
  
  I once worked with a Glaswegian who, despite having lived many, many years in England still kept an accent so strong that I had a job understanding him, but based on the above I would have thought Charles would have spoke with an English stammer. But I am happy to admit I may be wrong, can you provide any quotes to the effect that Charles did speak with a strong Scottish accent.
  
  
  

  Link to this forum: Civil Wars

  Report message12

• Message 13

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Thursday, 22nd December 2005

  Mani,
  
  Interesting point about the King's nationality.
  
  James I was Scottish, born and bred. After he moved to England the monarchs rarely visited Scotland. Did they feel particulary Scottish ? I doubt that. Dynasty was more important than nationality. Their power base was England.Μύ
  
  james the 1st was scottish yes, but james the 1st wasnt involved int the civil war, he died hundreds of years before........james the 1st of england however, was king of england and scotland (wales being considered a province of england at the time)

  Link to this forum: Civil Wars

  Report message13

Back to top