Comments on: Rethinking the English Revolution http://www.investigations.4-lom.com/2007/08/29/rethinking-the-english-revolution/ Failing better at understanding the past Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:36:46 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Gavin Robinson http://www.investigations.4-lom.com/2007/08/29/rethinking-the-english-revolution/#comment-5758 Gavin Robinson Mon, 03 Sep 2007 08:54:50 +0000 http://www.investigations.4-lom.com/2007/08/29/rethinking-the-english-revolution/#comment-5758 It's also interesting that although there's some discussion of "civil war" vs "revolution" both are assumed to be English. Again, I have reasons for using "English" to describe my own work (mainly because I haven't done any work on Scotland or Ireland, and very little on Wales) but with so much recent work on the British dimensions you'd think it would be necessary to explain why these articles are all focusing on England. It’s also interesting that although there’s some discussion of “civil war” vs “revolution” both are assumed to be English. Again, I have reasons for using “English” to describe my own work (mainly because I haven’t done any work on Scotland or Ireland, and very little on Wales) but with so much recent work on the British dimensions you’d think it would be necessary to explain why these articles are all focusing on England.

]]> By: Gavin Robinson http://www.investigations.4-lom.com/2007/08/29/rethinking-the-english-revolution/#comment-5663 Gavin Robinson Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:10:01 +0000 http://www.investigations.4-lom.com/2007/08/29/rethinking-the-english-revolution/#comment-5663 On second thoughts maybe I was a bit hard on John Walter's lack of definition. Skinner doesn't begin by defining anything either, he just starts using "English Civil War" without explanation. It's just that his reasons appear to be more strongly implied as his argument unfolds, whereas Walter's don't. Neither is explicit, but that's probably down to lack of space more than anything. And another thing about allegiance: telling stories to the compounding committee was one thing, but what about oaths? Didn't people believe that god <em>could</em> see into their heart of hearts and would know if they made a false oath? Or didn't this count if the oath was made under duress? It's something else that needs looking into anyway. On second thoughts maybe I was a bit hard on John Walter’s lack of definition. Skinner doesn’t begin by defining anything either, he just starts using “English Civil War” without explanation. It’s just that his reasons appear to be more strongly implied as his argument unfolds, whereas Walter’s don’t. Neither is explicit, but that’s probably down to lack of space more than anything.

And another thing about allegiance: telling stories to the compounding committee was one thing, but what about oaths? Didn’t people believe that god could see into their heart of hearts and would know if they made a false oath? Or didn’t this count if the oath was made under duress? It’s something else that needs looking into anyway.

]]>