The Leveller Revolution: Radical Political Organisation in England, 1640–1650

by John Rees

The Levellers, formed out of the explosive tumult of the 1640s and the battlefields of the Civil War, are central figures in the history of democracy. In this thrilling narrative, John Rees brings to life the men-including John Lilburne, Richard Overton and Thomas Rainsborough-and women who ensured victory and became an inspiration to republicans of many nations.From the raucous streets of London and the clattering printers' workshops that stoked the uprising, to the rank and file of the New Model Army and the furious Putney debates where the Levellers argued with Oliver Cromwell for the future of English democracy, this story reasserts the revolutionary nature of the 1642-51 wars and the role of ordinary people in this pivotal moment in history.In particular Rees places the Levellers at the centre of the debates of 1647 when the nation was gripped by the question of what to do with the defeated Charles I. Without the Levellers and Agitators' fortitude and well-organised opposition history may have avoided the regicide and missed its revolutionary moment. The legacy of the Levellers can be seen in the modern struggles for freedom and democracy across the world.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Politics, British Literature, 17th Century, English Civil War, Philosophy

618 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2016

Reviews

[Julian Worker · Rating 5 out of 5]

John Lilburne, William Walwyn, Richard Overton, Katherine Chidley, John Rede, and Thomas Rainsborough aren't as famous as Benjamin Franklin, Robespierre, Danton, George Washington, St Just, and Thomas Jefferson and yet they should be.

Indeed, the English Revolution isn't as famous as the American Revolution or the French Revolution and yet it should be.

In England in the 1640s there were two civil wars, a counter-revolution, a revolution and a regicide to top things off, I suppose you could say, at the end of the decade.

At the centre of this mayhem were The Levellers, a political movement that only really had one Member of Parliament who was sympathetic to their cause during this entire time - Henry Marten. Their influence increased as the decade dragged on and indeed they were a great factor in the decision to put King Charles I on trial for his life.

Without Leveller pressure, Colonel Thomas Pride would not have purged the House of Commons on 6th December 1648 to make sure there was no vote in favour of a treaty between Parliament and the King, even though Charles had been defeated twice by the parliamentary New Model Army.

The Levellers made their message clear by producing pamphlets from secret printing presses on a regular basis, distributing these political sheets to the people on the streets, setting a standard for future revolutionaries to follow.

These pamphlets fired the passions of the people and the soldiers of the New Model Army whose presence as an influential group in the future of democracy in England made sure the Putney debates became one of the most important events in the history of the country. Leveller alliances with certain churches were also of great importance to their increasing influence.

In the end, The Levellers were betrayed by Oliver Cromwell and his cadre of grandees who couldn't make themselves go down the glorious path to true democracy that The Levellers were agitating for.

What were the Levellers demands, well I suppose you could say a level playing field, annual parliaments and the vote for all, not just for those who owned a freehold on property worth at least 40 shillings in the money of the time.

John Wildman said at the Putney Debates:

Every person in England hath as cleere a right to Elect his representative as the greatest person in England. I conceive that's an undeniable maxime of Government: that all government is in the free consent of the people.

In England, it took over 270 years for this idea to become practised in law, showing how far ahead of their time some of The Levellers ideas were.

[Inna · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book on Levellers as a political organization, effectively exploiting printing in order to distribute their ideas and provide a perceptual venue for popular discontent. The author described the Levellers in process of gradual organization and self-differentiation from other political forces of the time as well as in their alliances with other groups. He points out that while their social radicalism ensured they will not have sufficient support within the social elites to win these to their ideas, and while after Cromwell's victory he managed to destroy them as an organization, still the revolution succeeded only due to initial alliance between the Levellers, with their popular supports and organizational savvy, and the Independents. Still, as in many other cases in history, the Levellers won in a very different revolution from the one they wished for.
While the story of creation, victory, and subsequent defeat of Levellers as a revolutionary organization is fascinating, the personal stories of the activists and their common struggles recreated the period for this reader admirably. I constantly found myself worried about writers and publishers Richard and Mary Overton, a parliamentarian Henry Marten, or an irrepressible printer William Larner, as I would worry about friends in danger. These and many other activists of the period come to life in this book and, while we never loose sight of the distance between their society and ours, do much to narrow that distance. In fact way too many of their political concerns are not obsolete yet.

[Symon Hill · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is very important book in terms of redressing the balance in recent historical debate about the Levellers. John Rees argues convincingly against those historians who insist that the Levellers were only a loose movement with little impact. He marshalls the evidence against this argument, demonstrating not only the impact of the Levellers but also their level of organisation.

I was fascinated by the evidence for the extent of the Levellers' organisational competence and advance planning. As a grassroots campaigning group, their skill and practice in this direction is overlooked by more elite-focused historians, despite the evidence.

However, I found the style of this book difficult at times. John Rees does not seem to be sure whether he wants to write an academic book making particular arguments or a general-interest book that flows well and holds a reader's interest. At times, fast-paced and engaging narratives give way to rather long-winded academic arguments about apparently minor points (perhaps they are related to more important points, but Rees could do with making this clearer at times).

I also feel that Rees pays insufficient attention to the religious beliefs of the Levellers, which he often seems to view as incidental or as a straightforward product of the time they lived in.

Despite all this, this book is well worth reading, both for finding out some fascinating stories about the Levellers and for appreciating how they worked, how they wrote and their impact on society and politics.

[Stephen Goldenberg · Rating 3 out of 5]

I love reading books on the English Revolution and was looking forward to this one. However, I found it rather heavy going. Very well researched and fascinating, I’m sure, to academics and students studying the period, but far too in depth for me. I was especially less interested in the various academic debates about the role of the Levellers in the revolution.
However, much more interesting was the use of printing presses (and the attempts to control them by the authorities) to produce huge numbers of pamphlets and petitions and the networks created for their distribution. Not so very different from modern day use of social media. This period also has lessons modern day politicians could learn about the need for building alliances and to prepare plans to try and avoid the inevitable pitfalls after any major change is achieved.

[Crooked · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.25-4.5*, somewhere in there. Could give it 4* or 5* with justification.

First among the real revolutionary forces of the conflagration of 1640-1660 England were the Levellers. The Levellers were a revolutionary that lasted over a decade, slowly built up on a group of pamphleteers in London to a coherent, formal, effective, and innovative political organisation and movement that could mobilise thousands of supporters, whose support stretched across England, and who reached into both civil life and the army.

In academic study of the English Revolution there has (rightly) been much interest on the Levellers, even if the ‘pop culture’ knowledge of the English Revolution is dismally incorrect. Rees’s is far from the first or the last study, and it is not really the first to look at the politics of The Levellers, though at the point of publication none had done it as thoroughly as Rees. The author is intervening in a long-standing historiographical debate about the Levellers: their ideology and radicalism (or otherwise); on a second ‘axis’, the scale of their organisation, popularity, and impact on the course of the revolution and of English history.

The post-war scholarship is dominated by Marxist works on The Levellers (many of that great generation of English historians were Marxists: Hobsbawm, Thompson, Taylor, Carr, and so on). For them, the English Revolution was a sort of [proto(?)-] bourgeoise revolution in which the rising class mobilised the subaltern classes (represented politically by The Levellers: the emergent working class and its reflection in the lower ranks of the New Model Army, though not so much the peasantry) to defeat the dominant class (the feudal nobility, represented in the king’s singular divinity and centrality). Once that has been done, the emergent [proto-] bourgeoise discards and turns on its subaltern partners, who have not yet reached a developmental maturity to have a ‘proletarian’ conscience and organisational strength, and the revolution is truncated. This all matches neatly with the course of the revolution, especially given, as Hill begins his biography of Cromwell, God’s Englishman, the Elizabethan regime that preceded the Stuarts had helpfully hollowed out the martial strength of the high nobility, which had been the main threat to royal power in the few centuries prior.

This followed a revisionist set of literature, particularly in the 60s-70s, which sought to downplay the revolutionary aspect of the English Revolution and, in particular of the Levellers. They instead argued either (A) the main body of the Levellers were not particularly revolutionary or were merely ancillary to the Cromwellian independents (B) the Levellers were not as successful, important, or popular as previously claimed—just a fringe movement whose importance was overstated by Marxist historians wanting something to confirm their theory and wrongly including army radicalism in the Leveller constellation.

Rees does not take the former approach in whole, but the book firmly repudiates the revisionist position. Rees seeks to demonstrate, first and foremost, that the Levellers were a serious, independent, coherent, and well-organised movement that existed before the civil war even broke out, and which developed its ideology independently from Cromwell et al, even if its political programme didn’t completely come together until events became more acute. Rees opposes attempts to minimise the popularity of the Levellers, though doesn’t claim they were as big as they were in the threat perception of Cromwell and Fairfax; he claims they were key to the outcome of the revolution, even if they were defeat. He claims that, while the army radicalisation occurred independently of the Levellers, the two very quickly became intertwined, and the former inspired by and adherent to the latter. Was Rainsborough, the great champion of army radicalism, not a proud Leveller—to the point it was even put on his gravestone? Second, though not nearly as emphasised throughout, Rees does view the Leveller movement as genuinely radical, particularly for its time, in its commitment to universal male suffrage (even if some made exceptions for servants), its involvement and mobilisation of women (even if it did not consider giving them the vote!), its hostility to the nobility and the feudal relations therein (though it shied away from the position of total collectivisation put by the later Diggers), and it opposed the monopoly-guild system that dominated the urban economy in the 17th Century.

Rees is convincing in all of this, and the body of evidence presented seems overwhelming. It is indisputable, to me, that the Levellers were all what Rees claims them to be, and Rees is clearly well embedded in the source material, for he uses it with strength and thoroughness. I do not see any argument against the Levellers’ coherence, strength, and, at least for a time, popularity in key urban areas and in a decent part of the army. I don’t know if this is the case, but I hope that this (among other works of the 90s onwards e.g., Gentles and Holstun) puts the revisionist argument to bed.
And so, there is little to dislike about the book. It is very well-written and achieves a great balance between academic rigour and pleasing, high-quality prose in which complex concepts are concretised without pointless ‘academese’ jargon. While it does require some level of understanding of the context of the English Revolution beforehand (Rees is perhaps unforgiving in his use of names and of context-specific terminology), it’s not inaccessible at all.

I have two significant quibbles with it. First, while Rees admits at the end that the book does not cover in any depth the class system and the revolution’s interaction with it (e.g., the class politics of the Levellers), it did feel as if the socioeconomic side of the Leveller movement, particularly in its aims, was not given enough time. social revolution inherently implies the (attempted) uprooting of the whole body of society, that is, its economic and class base as well as its political-institutional superstructure. To give the latter side of the Leveller programme without the former (despite hinting at economic motives and briefly listing a couple out without any elaboration) seems to be missing half the story! In the conclusion, Rees seems to lean back towards the more classic Marxist take of the Levellers as representing the underdeveloped subaltern working classes, but it’s not made explicit, and there’s not really any evidence given. Indeed, when some of the economic demands of the Levellers are given, they seem primarily to be against the monopolised guild economy in the city, and seek to provide support—but not class war—for the subaltern classes. So were they not proto-capitalist revolutionaries, even if accidentally? It's not clear. On the one hand, Rees seems to take their written promises of not wanting to ‘level all estates’ seriously, but, on the other, Marten’s mini-revolution in Berkshire seems to suggest something much more radical, and he puts into action (very incompletely) a total delegitimising and pre-dismantling of the whole feudal system. Maybe Marten was just more radical than the pamphleteers? Or maybe the promise to not ‘level all estates’ was just propaganda to hide their radicalism? Maybe it just referred to the lower “middling sort” (I hate that term as it’s never explained properly and it doesn’t seem coherent to me, just as ‘middle class’ today is incoherent in class terms), while still intending to ‘level’ the ‘grand’ nobility? It's left unclear.

The second issue I have with the book is about the failure of the Leveller revolution. As mentioned, Rees is convincing in demonstrating the strength, coherence, and embeddedness in the army of the Leveller Movement. There were Leveller commanders, regiments, and a lot of support in the rank-and-file. So how or why did it peter out so…pathetically? The crushing of the Levellers was a pitiful exercise. The resistance consisted of a few very small, unconnected mutinies in which a great deal of the rank-and-file went from rebellion to…just stepping down because their officers told them to? How could it be that the famous Ware Mutiny was stopped by…a persuasive speech by the enemy!? Would Lenin have stopped if Kerensky or the Tsar have given some great oration? There was certainly no Lenin among them, but the point is more so that a social revolution should surely not be defeated by speeches and orders from the antagonistic party! Even the mutinies that did end in bloodshed were fairly small battles with quick surrenders and few casualties. The only exception was Marten vs Fincher in Berkshire in which Marten “routed” Fincher’s forces, but then most of his regiment seemingly faded away and the bulk of it—without Marten (this is not explained)—failed at Burford with a whimper. This is largely unexplained. Rees does briefly bring up the revisionist point about how decisively the whole revolution was pushed aside after the restoration. How could happen within Rees’s hypothesis? The Bolsheviks and CPC fought for years as a minority faction before victory. Defeat took decades in Malaya, the murder of 2 million people in Indonesia, and even the peasant uprisings before the English Revolution had more mettle. Rees replies:

“long-term social changes were being incorporated into society in a way which did not require social revolution. And part of the answer lies in the fact that in the political revolution that did take place the radicals were always a minority working to gain only enough popular support to overwhelm their opponents. Once this was achieved both the solidity of the social and economic structure and the minority status of the radicals resulted in their rapid marginalisation.”

But these long-term social changes were incorporated at a glacial pace, and it’s not like Charles II was some great liberal reformist—quite the opposite! There wouldn’t be universal suffrage for men until the 20th Century! I am unconvinced by this and, while the evidence is overwhelming in favour of the Leveller Revolution’s significance, I am still left without a real reason for its timid finish.

[Jason · Rating 5 out of 5]

My new hero.

"John Rede was born in 1615 and died ninety-five years later in 1710. . . It was long remembered that 'when young he could lay his and on the saddle of the 1st troopers horse & vault unto that of the fourth.' This rude health was sustained by a diet that included 'his usual food' of ' a breakfast of milk porridge with 1 pound of butter: road or boild beef; with which he 'drank ale at little supper.' But as well as being physically robust he was a ; a man of learning for those times particularly in the Hebrew language.' . . . Rede had married his third wife, widow Sarah Bernard, on on 18 February 1693. John was seventy-eight and Sarah was thirty-four."

[Brendan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Probably a bit too serious a book for a dilettante like me. I am constantly fascinated by all these weird British social movements though. I didn't finish it, but I did get some library fines trying.

[gaverne Bennett · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book on too greatly neglected subject.

[Aine · Rating 3 out of 5]

Rees’ argument is that the Levellers were an organised group of political activists, both identifiable and effective in terms of the English Revolution. Coming together and gaining experience in political organising through the dissenting churches, illegal publishing, state repression, and later the army, the Levellers reaches their height with the defeat of the King and the moderate parliamentarians. After this, they were on the descent, though the mutinies show the power they could still wield. Their tradition was carried on in the radical churches.

The main frustration with the book is that Rees describes the Levellers as a movement but gives no context of what that meant economically or socially. There is a description of the backgrounds of some of the top men but little of what this meant in terms of Early Modern English or European society and there is even less in terms of the tens of thousands who signed petitions or took on organising roles. We learn about how the leaders planned for petitions to go about the country but not about whether it was actually achieved.

The other, related, frustration is that Rees does not take the time to define the political thought of the era, the Levellers or their opposition either at the outside or as the decade progresses, apparently because it is too difficult. Instead, he is taken to giving long descriptions of what seemingly every pamphlet ever printed by the Levellers said, insisting that this was a good summary of Leveller thought but providing little other than his own word to prove it. Who thought of themselves as Levellers - just the leaders in London or those who signed the petitions? Did they think what they were doing was new or radical? Did they think it was restoring an old style equality? What did people imagine as the nation beforehand and were the Levellers different in this? How did they get information on Naples and Holland? How did the new religions impact how they thought of the nation? (There is the feeling that for the author to delve too deeply into what the Levellers or radicals thought of popery, Ireland or the New World would create too much of a difference between the Levellers and the modern activists for whom Rees is trying to provide a non-problematic radical ancestry).

For all the talk of popular militancy there is little or no description of what popular meant or how the population thought.

I would not recommend this book to a friend.

[Toby · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a helpful and informative book which gets the reader into the undercurrents of mid C17th history, away from the headline news of Marston Moor, Naseby, Cromwell and Charles I. John Lilburne will be a reasonably familiar name to anyone with a passing interest in the Levellers, as perhaps is Thomas Rainsborough. Other names may be more obscure. The Leveller Revolution gives an insight into the chaos the times with revolution and counter-revolution, ebbing and flwoing throughout the late 1640s. This can make the read confusing at times as new names are introduced and perhaps not enough context is given. The Self-Denying Ordinance of 1645 is introduced (and is clearly significant) but no explanation is given. Likewise there could have been more detail on some of the religious controversies of the time. What, might be asked, is the difference between an Anabaptist, a Baptist, and a Peculiar Baptist? Or for that matter between an Independent and a Presbyterian.

The Levellers themselves come out of the book as mostly attractive characters. I would have liked to have heard more about Elizabeth Lilburn who seems just as an impressive figure as her husband. She fades away without further reference once we have learned that both her boys died of Smallpox. Did she accompany her husband to his exile in Jersey? Did she outlive him? Wikipedia will of course provide the answer, but it would have been nice to know.

The big question arising out of the book is why the Leveller Revolution failed. In France in 1789 and Russia in 1917 the more radical factions gained power until the point when dictatorship took over, but in England in 1649 the Levellers and others were quickly overcome by the conservative forces of Cromwell and Parliament. Rees provides a Marxist analysis of the Revolution but I've never been wholly convinced that 1649 demonstrated the triumph of the Bourgeoisie. Perhaps despite the impressive levels of organisation detailed in this book the Levellers were simply not numerous or powerful enough for their cause to win. Above all it seems that they did not have enough Parliamentary support or, despite the rebellions, representation in the military.

[Justin Evans · Rating 2 out of 5]

Regrettably, this is far too tough going for almost anyone. Rees thinks the Levellers were an organized group. Fine. He also writes sentences like this one:

"Cromwell's house in Drury Lane was where such a move was planned." (183)

Is that the first line of a ballad, metrically speaking? Sure. ("... they charged the Presbyterian men and cursed them all as damned." Stress on 'Pres' and 'ter', not 'byt'). But please note that the subject of the sentence is 'a move.' (What is the move? As you might, but might not, be able to see from the previous paragraph, someone has to do something to 'halt' the Presbyterian offensive.) Who planned it? Unclear. Why is the subject at the end of the sentence? Ballad form, ya'll! This is the first sentence of a paragraph. It gets worse from there. The next sentence has no metrical qualities at all. Instead, it just restates what this sentence was trying to state ("Cromwell's residence had become a centre of radical activity.") The sentence after that is excruciating: "As the Levellers' spring petitioning campaign unfolded it had created a dynamic which drew support from initially sceptical Independents." Grammatically, that says that Cromwell's residence 'drew support...', even though a little thought will tell us that it's meant to say the campaign drew support. Here, let me edit that for you: "The Independent came to support the Levellers, thanks to the Levellers' spring petitions." Not elegant, but not rebarbative.

I know, this is a minor inconvenience, but, macro-micro, the book shows the same confusing structure, which makes it incredibly difficult to read. That's a real shame, since Rees is a passionate and *extremely* knowledgeable scholar of this stuff.

[Simon B · Rating 3 out of 5]

A detailed, scholarly account of the Levellers in the English Revolution. It marshals a lot of evidence to back the thesis that the Levellers were an organised radical political current. They were active within the New Model Army and active in the general population (especially London) and at times greatly influenced the broader revolutionary movement. I found it convincing. This dense work sometimes reads like a conversation with other specialist historians so tends to assume some knowledge of the English Revolution itself. Those, like me, who don't really have such a great background knowledge of the period's key events might want to begin their reading elsewhere before reaching for this.

"What some modern historians who tend to dissolve Leveller organisation into the wider spectrum of radical parliamentarianism fail to explain is not the Levellers at their height, when they had a hegemonic relationship with other constituencies around them, but their continued strength even at the moment of their defeat. Shorn of Independent support and of much support from the gathered churches, with some members of their leadership departed and their main leaders imprisoned, the Levellers could still produce pamphlets with a coherent analysis, could petition and protest repeatedly on a mass scale, and could be at the root of three successive mutinies in the army. It is some indicator of what must have been the reach of the organisation at its height if this was the scale of its activity when reduced to its narrowest base."

[Cian Rowan · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is extremely well researched and it is clear that Rees knows the topic inside and out. That being said, I could only recommend it to students and people who are particularly interested in everything concerning the political undercurrents of the English revolution. The sheer amount of information was at times overwhelming. This would be a boon to someone actively doing research on the topic, but is less helpful to someone like myself who was looking for a slightly less heavy read.

Not to talk the book down though, Rees is an excellent writer and it seems he was aware that he was dropping an awful lot of information on the reader at all times. To combat this he drops in compelling and sometimes humorous snippets of narrative information that really help to break up the stream of debate on the significance of the levellers, which I as a casual reader found disorientating at times.

[Bob Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book has, for many reasons taken me a year and three days to finish. Don't let that put you off, it is entirely my fault, that I stuck with it is testament to its quality.
I am, (possibly an un-diagnosed autistic), unable to read past words I don't know, concepts I don't understand or historical events I don't understand, therefore, this being the English Revolution, there is much background reading on the Scots, the various church denominations, the follies of King Charles I, the many factions, the Regicides, (whom I live just near two of, John Bradshaw of Congleton and Thomas Harrison of Newcastle-under-Lyme.) Fifth Monarchists etc.
So there was a lot of background reading that went along with it, but if you already know that stuff, or don't care, then this is a fascinating read of one of the most turbulent times in English history.

[Steve Cox · Rating 5 out of 5]

I thought this was great. At first I worried that it wouldn’t get into the detailed story enough, but it did. There were some aspects I’d have liked more information on, but 0ne book can’t do everything and answer all questions. I was happy to follow in John Rees’ company and learn what he told me.
What a dramatic and fascinating point in our history. It’s such a classic ‘what if..’ moment. The w0nder is that the Levellers were in the political mix at all. There were so many vested interests galvanised into action to ensure they didn’t lose out, but the revolution came within a couple of whiskers of upending their world and making into law principles that took another 300 years to be enacted. The rise of democracy wouldn’t have been a one-step job, but if it had been successful the revolution could have cut out 200 years of suffering and injustice. I’m in awe of those men and women.

[Flob · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fascinating book about a group who many wish to write out of the history books. I am amazed how even today many people identify and sympathise more with the Royalists than with Parliament and how the Levellers are considered extreme - yet the Levellers were asking for the rights we we enjoy today and perhaps take too much for granted. This isn't about the Civil War, it's about the English Revolution from a Leveller perspective. It is also interesting to read this after reading about Peterloo when the right to petition parliament was challenged. In 1820 the English referred back to the Leveller precedent to claim their right to petition. Also interesting are the people who came back from New England to support the radical cause - I wonder how many radicals returned to New England to seek freedom there and ultimately a successful revolution?

[Guthrie Burnett-Tison · Rating 3 out of 5]

I do not recommend this book to anyone who wants to have a deeper understanding of English society, classes, and politics during the 17th century. Rees places the revolution as a whole to the background, and focuses almost completely on the genealogy of leveller documents, authors and printing presses. The details overwhelm the essential, and one is left with little insight into the overall historical process.

Such a pity that an amazing historical event is poorly dealt with and in such a dry academic manner. However, if one has sufficient interest in these historic details, you will be hard pressed in finding a better book on the subject. It is for this reason I give 3 stars and not lower.

[Rob Powell · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Levellers were the little man against the state. Norman Wisdom pitted against the Big Dairy, if you will and theirs is an engrossing tale from a time when opposing the powers-that-be could mean a spell in The Tower, or worse. The London of almost four hundred years ago is brought to life as is the suffocating religious side of life where expressing sympathy with the wrong splinter-sect could have nasty repercussions. You may struggle with some of the terminology - if you know what an Anabaptist is/was without looking it up then award yourself a gold star - while marvelling at people taking that sort of thing so seriously. In the end money talked, as it always will, and the old order was re-installed but for a while the people lived in a republic.....

[Rick Goff · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book argues that the Levellers should be seen as an organized party that played a significant role in the events and outcomes of the English Civil Wars. In particular, they made common cause with the radical Independents to avert an accommodation between the Presbyterian Parliament and King Charles.

I wouldn’t have thought this to be a point of controversy but I haven’t read any revisionist historians besides one book by Mark Kashlinsky. I noticed that he barely mentioned the Levellers but I attributed the omission to his narrow focus on the Stuart dynasty.

[Rick Halpern · Rating 5 out of 5]

Superb read! In many ways this is a history of the English Revolution/Civil War from the "bottom up." Insightful analysis of one of the more radical factions, with emphasis on London's underground pamphlet publishers, activists, and independent democratic religious congregations. Carefully delineates the relationship, often strained, between the Levellers and more mainstream anti-monarchial currents.

[Autumn · Rating 2 out of 5]

Deeply researched but almost unreadable in all of its detail. It did not include a big picture look at the Levellers' role within the wider Civil War and assumed the reader knew a lot of information about the dates and major events of the conflict.

[Bennett Walling · Rating 4 out of 5]

Solid narrative history about an interesting group

[Tim Bowden · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very good book. The story of how 17th century social media drove the English revolution

[Jon · Rating 5 out of 5]

This lively, dramatic account of the English revolution puts the Levellers' contribution to events centre stage. It is clear that without the Leveller interventions in 1647 and 1648, there would have been a bloody royalist restoration by 1650 - instead of a far less bloody one in 1660. We had a power cut round our house while I was half way through the book. From reading about the seventeenth century, I was plunged back into the darkness of candle-lit England. It was indeed an age of political darkness. The triumph of the Levellers was to see beyond the darkness of their age and shape the outcome of a revolution - through their ceaseless agitation, organising and leading from the front (quite literally at the battles of Turnham Green and Brentford). The demands of the Agreement of the People would be taken up again in the years that followed. The Levellers were beaten back but their ideas were taken up by repulicans like Algernon Sidney, whose writings were to be an inspiration to American and French revolutionaries. Sidney's bust would be carried through the streets of Paris a century later. John Rees has done the labour movement a valuable service in helping to rescue the Leveller movement from EP Thompson's oft-quoted "enormous condescension of posterity". This book stands comparison with the best work of Christopher Hill and Brian Manning.

[Erik Wirfs-Brock · Rating 3 out of 5]

Sort of uneasily caught between narrative history and settling arguments with other historians, still an ok book to learn about the most radical organized faction in the English Revolution.