[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 255 KB, 1162x850, Myamericanfacewhen.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5182184 No.5182184[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Can someone tell me some good books about the english civil war? How scandalous waa it in europe? Were its colonies left to manage themselves while britain fought it out? What was the relationship between england and scotland during the war? They were ruled by the same monarch yet they were not the united kingdom. People always talk about the french revolution and how their king was executed, the english did the same a century earlier.

After the conflict the modern english (british) style of government emerges, correct? The kings power is curbed to just a figure while the ministers rule? What about the glorious revolution?

Someone knowledgeable enlighten me.

>> No.5182373

Bump.

>> No.5182717

I don't really know a good overview book on the subject sorry, sure there are lots though.

It is increasingly called The War of the Three Kingdoms as English Civil War doesn't really do justice to the complexity of Ireland and Scotland in there too. It comes at the end of a long period of fighting in Europe over the clash between Catholics and Protestants so it isn't really unprecedented. The various factions in Europe rather looked on while they were licking their wounds and didn't really intervene significantly. The colonies of that time were pretty much a bit of america and they just carried on. Scotland split between the two factions in pretty much the same was as England. The united kingdom did come later but the two countries were fairly united off and on during that period. The Irish more decisively split away and squabbled a bit while looking on and laughing until Cromwell went and beat their asses so bad they are still pissed off about it.

After killing the king the government was called a protectorship because Cromwell didn't want to be a king. It was effectively a republic with an almost taliban style religious extremism that even Cromwell didn't much like. When Cromwell died his son took over but then king Charles came back from exile and everyone said welcome back we hate these arsehole puritans. So England pretty much reverted to how it had long been. The monarch's power had not really been curtailed but Charles was very careful not to fuck things up so in practice it was.

This was shown when James took over and everyone realised Charles II was a fluke good Stuart monarch and James was another arsehole who went back to using his full monarchical power. So the parliament offered the throne to some Dutch guy because that was better than James and James ran away because there was little dispute he was an arsehole. This is a feature of the British monarchy, the powers weren't usually taken away just curtailed bit by bit so actually using them will fuck over their chances of carrying on

>> No.5184167

So since the late 1600s the monarchy has been what it is now, correct? Just a figurehead while Parliament governs? That was the decisive event that produced the 'parliamentary democracy'?

>> No.5184228

>>5184167
In short, yes. Monarchs after the Stuart Restoration had less power than their predecessors, but more influence on the proceedings in parliament than the Queen has today. Like >>5182717 said, power has be curbed bit by bit over the years.

>> No.5184249

>>5182717
>Cromwell went and beat their asses so bad they are still pissed off about it.

They aren't pissed off about losing, they're angry about the holocaust and rape that ensued afterwards.

>> No.5184331

>>5184249

Mick detected

>> No.5184396

>>5184331
I'm Australian with Roman heritage

>> No.5184424

>>5184396
Me too.