The Causes of the English Civil War

The Whig Theory

Historians associated with the Whig school of thought see the Civil War as an inevitable consequence arising from the conflicting interests of crown and parliament during the 16th and 17th centuries based around religion. Parliament gradually became an aggressive institution clashing with the monarchy over their need for more power. This situation was intensified by the rise of Puritanism, advocating changing the church fundamentals and redistributing of power. The most dedicated Whig Historian is Christopher Hill, arguing the case even though this view has been widely discredited by Marxist and Revisionist historians.

Marxist Theory

Like Whig historians, Marxist historians also believe that the Civil War was the inevitable result of the build up of many incidents, which had a long-term effect upon society. The key difference is that most Marxists claim that social and economic crisis were more to blame than religion. Based upon the theories of Karl Marx, they propose that it was the transition from a feudal economy to a bourgeois state that caused many of the problems between crown and parliament, these social and economic changes were the key elements in determining political and religious changes. R. H Tawney in 'The Rise Of The Gentry' wrote that the increase in wealth through out the 16th and 17th centuries was bound to lead to demands for constitutional reform.

This analysis caused great debate during the 1950's and 1960's, all historians agreed that there was a rise in the gentry class. But disagree over whether or not these new classes of elite's were united. By the beginning of the Civil War, it is argued, that much of this class were divide into sections of neutrality, allegiance to the king or supporting parliament. Christopher Hill argued that 'the civil war was not a social conflict between a feudal reactionary regime and a class of revolutionary minded rising gentlemen'. This represents the Whig opposition to the Marxist school of thought.

Revisionist Theory

This is the most recent explanation for the causes of the Civil War. Whig explanations still remain influential, especially the rise of Puritanism and the increasing power of parliament.

However there are several characteristics that distinguish this school of thought from the rest. Firstly, they completely reject the use of hindsight and the rejection long-term events. They argue that ' Historical events should be looked at in there own right and not used to look for the origins of later events'. This apparently is earlier historians went wrong, and created distorted reports of the Civil Wars origins.

Revisionists do however emphasize the shared assumptions of the crown and it's subjects represented in parliament. Conrad Russell argues that there were no ideological divisions within the parliaments of James I or Charles I, and conflicts actually arose from court fractional disputes or the misunderstanding of national affairs. Leaving K Sharpe to argue that the personal rule was actually a time of relative political calm and stability.

They argue that the origins of the Civil War can be found shortly after the outbreak of war with Scotland in the 1630's, and after the Short and Long parliaments in 1640.The main cause of the Civil War was actually the breakdown of trust between crown, parliament and the three kingdoms. It is also argued that the origins lie in the fact that Charles I made many revolutionary changes to government, that the Conservative minded nation of gentry could not accept. They claim that up until the Long parliament in 1640 Civil War was impossible to have due to lack of support and resources. The results of the Long parliament left the nation divided, full of indecision and neutralism.

Tanya Walsh