The Causes of the English Civil War

by Conrad Russell

What were the causes of the English Civil War? The traditional explanations involving the struggle for sovereignty and the bourgeois revolution have been questioned in recent years. In this study, Conrad Russell offers a compelling new analysis, bringing into focus fundamental religious and constitutional issues of vital importance to contemporaries but neglected by historians. Drawing heavily on research in printed and unpublished sources, Russell highlights the constitutional problem of multiple kingdoms within Britain; the religious problem of competing theologies within and outside a state church; and the economic problem of the inadequacy of royal revenue to meet the needs of the monarchy. The most in-depth account to date of the origins of one of the most significant events in British history, this will be essential reading for all students of the seventeenth century.

Genres: History, English Civil War, Nonfiction, British Literature

256 pages, Paperback

First published December 27, 1990

About the author

Conrad Sebastian Robert Russell, 5th Earl of Russell, was an English historian of early Stuart Britain and a politician. His parents were the philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell and his third wife Patricia Russell. He was also a great-grandson of the 19th-century British Whig Prime Minister Lord John Russell.

Reviews

[Katie · Rating 3 out of 5]

A quick but dense overview of what led up to the English Civil War(s) beginning in 1642. Conrad Russell blames it on a myriad of factor that basically boils down to 1) the complex balancing act of multiple kingdoms - James I then Charles I were kings of England, Scotland, and Ireland, 2) the fact that all of these lands (and varying groups within them) had loads of different religious variations and held them pretty dear, 3) Charles I was rapidly running out of money, and 4) Charles was rapidly declining in popularity and respect.

It's a thoughtful book, though I think sometimes it's a little to dense and fearful of saying anything concrete for its own good. It's not a good introduction to the subject - unless you know 16th and 17th century England very well you're going to need another book or Wikipedia to check all of the references that get thrown around. But if you already know the gist of the situation and you want a slightly different look at what went on, I would recommend it.

[Taylor Rollo · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Causes of the English Civil War. Conrad Russell. Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press, 1990. ISBN: 978-0-19-822141-8. Pp. x, 236. $75.25

Conrad Russell states in his opening paragraph that “we have certainly spilt enough ink on the causes of the English Civil War.” “Why then,” one might ask, “is he spilling more on this volume?” Part of the answer is that this book is the distillation of series of lectures that Russell gave as the Ford Lecturer at Oxford University in 1987-8. He enjoyed the experience, and his study of the subject was enriched by the discussion and feedback he received, so why not publish the final product? Another part of the answer seems to be that his 28 years of research on the subject has left him with the distinct impression that too many historians have let their search for “relevance” bias their view of the period, assume that the major developments of the period must have contributed to the causes of the war, or have projected onto the period “supposed causes” that made sense to their thought. Therefore, Russell hopes to correct many misconceptions with good historiography applied to the period in this work.

In his opening chapter, Russell lays the critical groundwork for the rest of the book. He argues that the English Civil War was not an isolated event but really the final product of a series of events and non-events that need to be investigated. Finding the causes of the events and non-events will bring us to the causes of the Civil War itself. He writes in his own summary of his basis for the rest of the book:
…the Civil War should be ascribed to a conjunction of seven events and non-events: why there were Bishops’ Wars, why England lost them, why there was no political settlement in England, why the Long Parliament was not dissolved in 1641, why England divided into parties, why there was no serious negotiation to avoid war, and why respect for majesty came to be so deeply diminished.

It is these that Russell investigates in the following chapters. The investigation is not at as simple, however, as trying to take these events in series. Russell argues that they are like explaining the conjunction of Halley’s Comet and Earth: even while plotting their movements individually, one cannot completely separate them since each affects the other. Therefore, instead of taking each event or non-event by itself in its own chapter, Russell divides the remaining chapters topically. Each topic will be invoked to help explain several of these events and non-events.

In the next seven chapters, Russell explores the following series of topics: the problem of multiple kingdoms, the problem of wanting the Church of England, the problem of its development, the problem of trying to unify three kingdoms religiously, the rule of law, financial woes, and the King himself. Even as one looks at the table of contents, the observant reader would immediately begin group these topics into three or four categories: multiple kingdoms, religious tension (the bulk of the book), financial mismanagement, and Charles’s gross mishandling of his authority. As one progresses through these chapters where the causes of the events and non-events are investigated, one starts to see these categories solidify. Therefore, by the time the reader gets to the conclusion, Russell’s final words are not a surprise. He has skillfully led the reader to his conclusion.

In the final chapter, Russell gives his conclusions and does, in fact, conclude that there were “three long-term causes”: “the problem of multiple kingdoms, the problem of religious division, and the breakdown of a financial and political system in the face of inflation and the rising cost of war.” These three, combined with “Charles’s failings as a ruler” can, according to Russell, adequately explain why the English Civil War happened when and how it did. The reader might get to the end and find this conclusion somewhat anticlimactic, but we believe the strength of this work comes in how it shows just how far-reaching the effects of these causes were and how grossly they were mishandled by the government, particularly Charles I.

By the time we had finished this book, we had found that there were several strengths that need to be appreciated and pointed out. First, Russell writes this work not just as a book to argue his thesis but as a lesson in what he believes to be good historiography. Like many good teachers, he is not simply teaching facts but teaching how to think about history, how to investigate sources, and how to follow the sources to the conclusions to which they most naturally lead. Russell also helpfully shows how the greater context of an event (or non-event) can be much larger than we might at first think. This war was the English Civil War, but the greater context of the three kingdoms of Britain cannot be ignored if one wants to understand it properly. Finally, we also appreciated how well Russell explains the religious landscape of the 17th century, which likely baffles most modern readers. For example, in our context, we wonder why anyone would fight over the Church of a nation and not tolerate diversity, why episcopacy would be frightening to dissenters, or why the Scots felt they needed to reform English religion. Russell gives the needed cultural and historical background so that the modern reader can understand these ideas and the individuals who fought for them.

Not being an historian, we are not sufficiently knowledgeable of 17th-century Britain to confirm or deny the historical accuracy of many aspects of this work or to know if Russell truly paid attention to all the factors or looked far enough back in history. Historians who are experts in this time and place will need to answer those questions. However, from our perspective, this book was readable and a helpful lesson in doing good historical research just as much as it was an illuminating explanation of the English Civil War. We believe it was, in fact, ink worth being spilt.

[Lauren Albert · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very dense book and I started from the beginning when I finished to try to connect all of the dots better. I think it is worth reading though I don't know if someone with no background in the Civil War should read it. Even with all my reading, I did struggle. Russell (among other things) shows that Charles I was a necessary but not sufficient cause of the war. He also shows that there was no "clash of two clearly differentiated social groups or classes" and gives examples to show how lines were not so clearly drawn as sometimes portrayed--no court and country, no class breakdown, not even clear religious divides. One of the important points he makes is the role of the "multiple kingdoms"--nothing could be done in one without affecting the others and this played a very important part in causing the war--particularly the Bishops' Wars.

[Juan Jose · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent Academic History

Learning - 5
Enjoyment - 5
Writing - 5

This is a fairly old book so I'm not sure how much of it is still current, however, it is one of the best 'technical' history books I've read and still a relevant read.

I'll address first why it's still relevant: the book is structured and written in a way that provides a very clear overview of the characters and factions that contributed to the Civil War. It shines at identifying the significant motivations, characteristics and relationships that contributed to the Crisis. In short, it provides a very clear framework for understanding the main actors and why the story developed as it did. As such, it's a great 'in-depth introduction' to the topic.

Arguably, it's also important from a historiography point of view.

However, the book is also special for other reasons: put simply, it's a joy to read. It's a testament to its writing and structure that although it goes into considerable depth, the book never feels heavy, slow or inaccessible (even to someone new to the topic).

First, a couple of notes on the writing itself: the book is full of 1st hand accounts and excerpts. These are done superbly, always being relevant and greatly enhancing the argument. Prof Russell manages to introduce them seamlessly, always providing the right amount of context to make them understandable to the lay reader. The overall effect is to make the book a truly immersive experience. The vocabulary is also appropriate: not being overly technical or 'high-brow'.

The structure of the book greatly contributes to the enjoyment: it's short and sweet. It does not repeat itself and it's structured in a way that is easy to follow given the complexity of the arguments. Prof Russell has come very very close to the golden maxim of 'leave nothing important out, include nothing unimportant'.

It's been a while since I read such a well-written 'heavier' book. It truly walks the line between smart, informative and enjoyable.

[Simon Alford · Rating 5 out of 5]

Summarises the causes with crystal clear clarity. If I remember correctly :-

3 long term causes and 7 events / non-events.

For example why impose the Prayer Book on the Scots ? no reason to do this except ego.
And of course the King, Charles, without whose qualities civil war was impossible.

Great stuff.

[Joseph Morgan · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good, solid work of history. Russell writes elegantly and clearly; his arguments are easily grasped.
But what of their viability? I think Russell comes as close as any historian has to explaining why the English Civil War occurred, taking into accounts the nature of the sources and the limitations inherent in the historical enterprise.
He essentially argues that the Civil War was the result of a combination of long- and short-term factors. There were long-running problems within the British state: namely, the nature of the composite monarchy and the closely linked issue of religious division.
It would have been possible to manage these issues and thereby prevent them from flaring up into full-scale civil war. This is exactly what James I did from 1603 to 1625.
But Charles I was not as good a king as his father; he was a fool. He lit the fuse of his own downfall in 1637, when he tried to impose an Anglican prayer book on the Presbysterian Scots. He then refused to back down in the face of strenuous opposition. This obstinacy turned a one-off crisis into the chain of events which culminated in the Civil War.
In short, Charles failed to 'manage' the long-term divisions between and within his three kingdoms; and it was this failure which resulted in his downfall.

[Bob Costello · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting book on a very complicated time. Focused on the political and religious landscape of England, Scotland and Ireland during the end of the 16th century and the first half of the 17th century. The book is well written and not difficult to read.

[Katie Beene · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent overview of the causes and effects of the English Civil War in England. It is important that this author stresses that this is only one part of a larger British problem.

[Stephanie Masterson · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 - more later

[Randy Morgan · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this book for a course on Stuart England at the University of Mississippi. The book was an interesting look at religion and politics in 17th century England. While the book is a bit heavy for someone with no prior knowledge of English history, the book does a good job covering the topic.

[Elizabeth · Rating 4 out of 5]

i loved this book. i read it on the flight to boston, thin book but packed with info, like i was sitting through a semester of lectures. if you are interested in the history behind the american revolution or the stuart dynasty (for me YES and YES), i recommend.

[Megan · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read this for my secondary tutorial at Worcester College, Oxford (Culture, Politics, and Society in England: 1558-1660).

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

nonfiction,history

[imngrer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not as good as his other books but I still find Russell very readable. This provides a perspective I find more acceptable than many others.

[Julaine]

Used for H333 Stuart England and H429 Stuart England.

[Simon Harrison · Rating 5 out of 5]

An incredible book but so dense and assumes a serious level of existing knowledge. Not for the beginner, barely for the intermediate and requires a lot of additional reading.