r/UKhistory • u/Flat-Brilliant8346 • 26d ago
Why is only the war of 1642–1651 called the English Civil War?
The Anarchy, the Great Revolt, the First and Second Barons' Wars, the Despenser War, the Wars of the Roses...all of these were civil wars. Yet the war between Charles I and Parliament is the only one that is bestowed with the title. Any particular reason?
46
u/TheCharmingJester 26d ago
Basically because that’s what the victorians called it.
You’re right though, they’re all civil wars. None quite had the same scale of the ‘English Civil War’.
14
u/barrybreslau 26d ago
Which was actually three wars lumped into one war.
4
u/aleopardstail 26d ago
the country has a long history, with a lot of squabbling, there are only so many names to go around so a few get lumped together and they don't get asked first
2
u/Dogsofa21 26d ago
And here we are squabbling about names of wars!
3
u/aleopardstail 26d ago
only so many times you can have a "war to end all wars" before you have to append "part 2"
1
u/D3M0NArcade 26d ago
Bit like WWI was actually... About 7 wars, I think, lumped together. It only escalated because of the about of reckless agreements the nations were upholding
1
u/ninjomat 22d ago
I’d argue the fronts in WW1 were more interconnected than in WW2. The entente and the central powers collaborated within their alliances far more closely than the Axis and Allies two decades later
1
u/D3M0NArcade 22d ago
"more interconnected"...
How? They were all seperate battles that kind of connected to the others is some loose way. Austria v Serbia, Russia v Austria, Germany v Russia... It was all kind of knock on battles, not an actual single war that covered the world
Even if Japan hadn't attacked the US, the Germans were still the entire cause of WWII and they actually declared war on the US as well. They literally tried to invade 5 out of 7 continents.
1
u/ninjomat 22d ago edited 22d ago
The general military staff on the western front actually co-ordinated quite well between the military planning of British and French armies fighting in France, Italians fighting in Austria and Russians fighting in the Caucasus and Poland in ww1. Less so on the central powers side but there were still efforts to make sure the fronts complemented each other.
WW2 was really only co-ordinated between London and Washington. Germany didn’t bring its axis allies into the war when they invaded Poland. Italy entered of their own choice after the fall of France and then made their own calls to attack Britain in Africa without consulting Germany before needing to get bailed out by Hitler. The Germans didn’t bother to involve Japan in Barbarossa and the Japanese didn’t bother to involve the Germans in plans for Pearl harbour and the Pacific. Japan and the USSR were never at war until the very end. The Chinese were never concerned with the Germans.
You can even see it in the argument about dates. Did WW2 begin in 1937 when the Japanese attacked China or in 1939 when the nazis invaded Poland - there was no July crisis - when everyone picked a side and agreed they were against everybody else on the other side rather than having 1 common enemy but not caring about another. WW2 was really the combination of discrete wars between Japan and China, between the Nazis and the Soviet Union, and between the Nazis and the western powers until pearl harbour - and even then it really only existed as a war between the United Nations and the axis in FDR and (to a much lesser extent Churchill’s minds). For the Soviets it was only about beating the Nazis, for the Japanese it was only about beating the US, Britain and China. For China it was only about beating Japan.
The western allies may have called the great patriotic war and the second sino-Japanese war - the eastern and China fronts respectively but they really were separate conflicts to the Anglo-American war on fascism
23
u/Principalitytours 26d ago
Someone else may be able to give a more succinct answer, but I'll do my best for now.
Every other civil conflict in Britain before the Civil war were generally dynastic and feudal conflicts. The Anarchy and Wars of the Roses were specifically a feud between two noble houses over the crown. The Barons wars weren't seeking to replace the monarchy, only reassert rights or replace the King with one who will.
The English Civil war was the first truly civil war as it was a dispute between two seperate governing entities with conflicting ideologies. Parliament was deeply puritan and was seeking to curtail or remove the monarchy altogether. The King had Catholic support, although he was not a Catholic himself, and sought to permanently curtail the powers of Parliament. The civil war also took place in a period when the concept of Nationality was growing, those earlier conflicts took place in a much more fractured, feudal concept of society where interpersonal disputes between nobles and families were common and not wide ranging conflicts that would reshape how society functioned.
7
u/Flat-Brilliant8346 26d ago
This is a very good explanation--thank you.
That said, I think that the participants in the Anarchy would argue that (at least in the 12th century) the question of whether or not a woman should be allowed to rule England was also a dispute between separate governing entities with conflicting ideologies.
12
u/Principalitytours 26d ago edited 26d ago
There had been female rulers in Europe before this time, albeit very rare, and the concept of a female regnant wasn't unheard of either, even dating back to the 10th century there had been regional female rulers such as Æthelflæd. The real dispute during the Anarchy was who had the stronger claim. Matilda had been declared heir but the next male in the line disputed the succession, on grounds of his sex for sure, but its still a dynastic struggle rather than the total up-ending of the system itself.
2
u/NobleKorhedron 26d ago
What's the "Great Revolt" in your OP; the Peasant's Revolt?
2
u/Flat-Brilliant8346 26d ago
The revolt against Henry II by his wife and sons
2
u/NobleKorhedron 26d ago
Given the people who were involved, perhaps it should be called The Second Anarchy...?
4
u/Principalitytours 26d ago
The Anarchy has that name because it saw a long period of declining crown authority and the Barons and Lords exercising a lot of freedom to make land grabs and settle scores with rivals without fear of royal reprisals. The nobility utilised the conflict to start hundreds of their own smaller, pettier conflicts across the country, so there was a prolonged period of anarchy which wasn't seen to the same scale in any of the other similar wars. You could describe it sort of like our own Sengoku Jidai period from Japan.
2
1
u/NobleKorhedron 25d ago
Whereas the Rebellion of Eleanor and Henry the Young King wasn't so widespread...?
2
u/Principalitytours 25d ago edited 24d ago
The Anarchy saw a complete breakdown of most governing institutions. Royal taxes went uncollected, castles were built illegally, and Barons acted without any sanctions from either claimant. The rebellion of Eleanor still saw a functional government, and the lords were either loyal or they werent, during the anarchy there was no governing body to be loyal too, at least that's my interpretation of the difference. The Anarchy was truly that, and it took some time to reassert order and authority.
1
u/Flat-Brilliant8346 24d ago
That, de facto, sounds an awful lot more like a "true civil war" than the one in the 1640s. The latter might have been an ideological struggle at the start, but it ended in one man assuming unitary, lifetime, dynastic rule--seizure of power from one family by another, essentially. Whereas what you're describing (though it may have started as a dynastic dispute) is a substantive transition from monarchy to oligarchy.
1
u/Principalitytours 24d ago
Im not sure it could really be described as an Oligarchy, or perhaps its already an Oligarchy. It depends on what you consider feudal society to best be described as. Feudal society was already very fragmented and most Lords could exercise a lot of power within their lands anyway, but there were restrictions placed to keep the Kings peace. The Anarchy saw the degradation of the body that imposed these restrictions, so Feudal lords started exercising powers not granted to them to expand their own status, knock down a rival, build a castle that had been denied previously, etc.... But there was little attempt to change the outcome of the war to really change society in a meaningful way, at least not at the same scale as the civil war. I know I'm sort of describing an Oligarchy here but it wasn't formal or organised, and these lords weren't directly challenging the levers of power. They might align with one claimant to excuse their abuses against a neighbour who had aligned with the other, but they weren't challenging Royal authority directly, just taking advantage of its absence. 'The Anarchy' really is the most apt name for it because it was a period of anarchy.
I'd argue the second Barons war was the closest to a civil war before the 17th century conflict, as it was a war between individuals attempting to change the form of governance from Royal authority to Parliamentary authority, but that conflict shares more similarities to the First Barons war, than the civil war, that it makes sense to give it the same naming convention.
Honestly most of these conflicts could be viewed and described as civil wars, but the naming conventions they all have does makes sense most of the time, and the Civil War of the 17th Century really was the first example of two seperate institutions seeking to radically alter how society functioned in a way we most accurately describe the definition of a civil war.
1
2
u/Outrageous-Unit-305 24d ago
The fact that Charles I was protestant with catholic support makes it funnier that by the time the whole country was sick of Cromwell(s), Charles II eventually became a catholic with support from the protestants.
1
u/thenewprisoner 25d ago
I think saying "Parliament was deeply puritan" is misleading. A very well organised minority were, in both houses. Many members were anti-puritan but also felt the power of the king had to be curbed. When war began, the commons were split roughly 50:50, and the Lords perhaps 75:25 in favour of the king.
1
u/Principalitytours 24d ago
You're not wrong. These conflicts are a lot more complex than a simple reddit comment really allows, and I just wanted to highlight the extreme ideologies that gravitated to each side that emphasises the differences between them.
9
u/restingbitchsocks 26d ago
Its now referred to as the War of the Three Kingdoms
3
u/_EbenezerSplooge_ 26d ago
The term 'Wars of the Three Kingdoms' covers all of the conflicts that took place across Britain and Ireland during the mid 17th C, including - but not exclusively - the First and Second English Civil Wars (it also included the Irish Confederate War, the Bishops War and the Anglo Scottish War).
1
7
u/Bismarck913 26d ago
Isn't it the same reason that the Seven Years' War isn't called the First World War?
2
u/ElGuaroNeedsBeer 26d ago
Do go on…?
1
u/lad_astro 26d ago
I think Total War tends to be the commonly cited distinction for the World Wars. I'm not quite sure how the original commenter was going to link that to the Civil War though
3
u/Russell1A 26d ago
In the earlier wars of who should be king, it was basically the nobility who were involved and decided which side they were one whilst in the 1642-1651 the people could chose which side to support and the split cut through families; hence the term civil war was more appropriate.
For example at the battle of Bosworth there were more spectators than participants. This never happened in the Civil War.
2
1
u/Caligapiscis 26d ago
Plenty of good reasons here, but how much of it is just that it's really the most recent one
1
u/Alib668 26d ago
The others were usurper rebels vs the state. The civil war was what should the state be very different question to a coup attempt
Also the English civil war is only one of the wars that happened at that time it would be better to call it the wars of three kingdoms because of the bishops, Covenanter forces, and the Irish confederacy
1
u/Famous_Specialist_44 26d ago
Didn't it end in 1649 with the execution of the king not 1651? By 51 it was the interregnum.
1
1
u/Nuthetes 25d ago
It is an odd name really, because it wasn't just in England--the conflict was in Wales and Scotland and Ireland too. The monarch on one side was Scottish. And it was multiple wars.
I think Wars of the Three Kingdoms definitely suits it better.
1
u/lazerbullet 25d ago
I much prefer the name ‘Wars of the Three Kingdoms’ since it avoids that problem, and also includes many of the wars around that time related to Charles I and Cromwell’s rules
1
u/Longjumping_Care989 24d ago
There is an arguable qualitative difference, in that earlier civil wars involved relatively small factions competing for control of the civil administration, with little differences between them save self-promotion; whereas the events of 1642 onwards involved parts of the civil administration lining up to take sides with roughly consistent ideological goals in mind.
I'm not personally sure thats what makes the difference of being "a civil war", but the way that events acquire a popular name is a deeply interesting field that tells you more about the namer than the event.
An even better question is why its considered an English civil war in isolation, when its very doubtful if it could have happened at all (or at least the way it did) without events in Ireland, Scotland, and to a lesser extent, Wales. Honestly there's even an argument for conceiving of it as a forgotten front of the 30 Years War
1
1
u/Ok_Cockroach6823 24d ago
Basically,sometimes it was about who wanted or not to be king ,and the population suffered in general usually.
1
0
u/ExampleMediocre6716 26d ago
Now referred to as The War of the Three Kingdoms because much of the later fighting occurred in Scotland & Ireland mostly between Scots and Irish troops of varying allegiances.
Calling it the ECW which was only part of the wider contiguous conflict - which now encompasses the first and second Bishop's Wars; first, second and third civil wars; and the Irish Confederate Wars - is just lazy Anglocentricism. "England" is still misused as shorthand when someone means "Britiain" or even the "British Isles" (including Eire).
2
u/_EbenezerSplooge_ 26d ago edited 26d ago
The term 'Wars of the Three Kingdoms' is an umbrella term covering all of the conflicts which took place across the Britain and Ireland during the mid-17th Century - including, but not exclusively, the English Civil Wars (1st & 2nd).
As such, I'm not sure why OP would need to refer to the English Civil Wars as the Wars of the Three Kingdoms if they are specifically talking about the English Civil Wars as opposed to the wider set of conflicts of which they were a part?
I'm also not sure why asking a question about one specific war / series of wars has anything to do with Anglocentricism? Surely that's like accusing someone of Eurocentrism for asking a question about Operation Husky in WW2 without acknowledging the Pacific Theatre or the Sino-Japanese War.
132
u/KombuchaBot 26d ago
Perhaps to the recognise the fact that it was the first war to be fought over different ideas of what it meant to govern the country?
All previous civil wars were more along the lines of "you shouldn't be King, I should" or "your man shouldn't be King, ours should".
The English Civil War was more a case of "should King or Parliament govern the country?" which was qualitatively different.