City Travel Guides
Home Page > Go back a page
Books : God's Fury, England's Fire: A New History of the English Civil Wars
Search Books - select a category
Rating: 
- A war to reach a compromise
I am always a little reluctant to buy books that claim to be a "new history" of events that were well recorded and happened some 370 years ago. English history lacks bite, a dull procession of uninspired monarchs and a frenzy of Empire building. The Civil War seemed more a squabble, relatively small armies and minor engagements. Brought up in the West Country, the ruins of Corfe Castle and siege at Sherborne vaguely linked me to Cromwell, the man with warts, with no more than a hazy school history to call on.
I dipped into Michael Braddick's large book and - as they say - found it hard to put down. The issues, sketched from numerous angles were well developed. The politics of the three Kingdoms (although this is not focussed on Ireland and Scotland), the personality of Charles vacillating between high principles and sordid double-dealing, the profound religious divisions in a land of deep superstions. The most surprising element was the sophistication of the political debate. Fuelled by pamphlets the people engaged with the issues and considered them on a level far more intelligently than our own age. They had a self-belief, a desire to stand up and be heard. News was circulated, "high politics, the most important matters of state, were now being canvassed quite deliberately on the streets of London and in the counties."
Against this are themes of low politics. The use of black propaganda and generation of fear and unease (Irish atrocities, anti Popery) to attain political cohesion. This has a direct resonance with much of what we endure today; irrational fear rapidly moves people more than reason. The role played by the mob reminds us of Rome. It need not have happened; compromise was always at hand but opportunities missed. The nation(s) stumbled to violent disaster. It could have been easily avoided, it so often nearly was. I liked Braddicks' style; he presents a multi faceted picture of Charles, his strength, his vanity, his dilemmas and his stupidity. He leaves it to the reader to make up their mind, villain or martyr or just a man trapped by circumstance. His execution was self-inflicted. Alternatively, was it the kindest act to stop him fermenting more bloodshed? Cromwell is in this account a relatively minor figure late to arrive but capitalising on a political vacuum to mount a military coup.
This is a fine book; the complexities of the politics, the role of the state, religion, and the military campaign are well woven into a narrative. It provides clarity and demands you should read further. The paradox was once combat got underway "the escalation of warfare was not accompanied as to what, precisely, the fighting was for". The English civil war was about people taking extreme positions to find a compromise.
- A war to reach a compromiseI am always a little reluctant to buy books that claim to be a "new history" of events that were well recorded and happened some 370 years ago. English history lacks bite, a dull procession of uninspired monarchs and a frenzy of Empire building. The Civil War seemed more a squabble, relatively small armies and minor engagements. Brought up in the West Country, the ruins of Corfe Castle and siege at Sherborne vaguely linked me to Cromwell, the man with warts, with no more than a hazy school history to call on.
I dipped into Michael Braddick's large book and - as they say - found it hard to put down. The issues, sketched from numerous angles were well developed. The politics of the three Kingdoms (although this is not focussed on Ireland and Scotland), the personality of Charles vacillating between high principles and sordid double-dealing, the profound religious divisions in a land of deep superstions. The most surprising element was the sophistication of the political debate. Fuelled by pamphlets the people engaged with the issues and considered them on a level far more intelligently than our own age. They had a self-belief, a desire to stand up and be heard. News was circulated, "high politics, the most important matters of state, were now being canvassed quite deliberately on the streets of London and in the counties."
Against this are themes of low politics. The use of black propaganda and generation of fear and unease (Irish atrocities, anti Popery) to attain political cohesion. This has a direct resonance with much of what we endure today; irrational fear rapidly moves people more than reason. The role played by the mob reminds us of Rome. It need not have happened; compromise was always at hand but opportunities missed. The nation(s) stumbled to violent disaster. It could have been easily avoided, it so often nearly was. I liked Braddicks' style; he presents a multi faceted picture of Charles, his strength, his vanity, his dilemmas and his stupidity. He leaves it to the reader to make up their mind, villain or martyr or just a man trapped by circumstance. His execution was self-inflicted. Alternatively, was it the kindest act to stop him fermenting more bloodshed? Cromwell is in this account a relatively minor figure late to arrive but capitalising on a political vacuum to mount a military coup.
This is a fine book; the complexities of the politics, the role of the state, religion, and the military campaign are well woven into a narrative. It provides clarity and demands you should read further. The paradox was once combat got underway "the escalation of warfare was not accompanied as to what, precisely, the fighting was for". The English civil war was about people taking extreme positions to find a compromise.