Scotch-Irish-L Archives

Archiver > Scotch-Irish > 2005-07 > 1121090059

From: "Edward Andrews" <>
Subject: RE: [Sc-Ir] Beatty
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 14:54:19 +0100
In-Reply-To: <>

Hi Linda.
I would suggest that to understand the events between 1637 and 1660 you
don't call it the British Civil war.
Give it the generic named of the War of the Three Kingdoms.
It then breaks down into the Bishops War (Scotland vs. England.) The war of
the Confederacy - (AKA the 1641 massacre), The English Civil War (Cavaliers
vs. Roundheads with the Scots supporting the Roundheads and having their own
wee internal war with Montrose). The War over the killing of the King
(Cromwell vs. Scots). The re-conquest of Ireland. (Cromwell vs. Irish).
While it is still complicated (and not wholly accurate for the question of
who the Irish were is important), at least you are able to put it into
Having studies this period 3 times at University as Irish History, as
British (English) History and as Scottish History I am convinced that the
easiest is to begin in Scotland where the trouble really started.
The problem is that there is this Anglo-centric view of British History,
and while things have improved the books which most people will have access
to tend to see things from an English point of view.
Edward Andrews

-----Original Message-----
From: Linda Merle [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 1:50 PM
Subject: RE: [Sc-Ir] Beatty

Hi John,

I've never
read a history of the British Civil War that could REALLY make
sense of it though I've read lots who tried and most of them
admit at the start that they can't really understand it.
It was very, very, very complicated -- so I'll stop here before
I say something someone disagrees with. The experts
disagree on its causes so none of us here will agree <grin>.

I got interested in it due to family involvement in England.
I also got a book on Cromwell in Ireland that's very interesting. And
there's the usual stuff you read on Cromwell
in Ireland. Recently an Irishman wrote a book debunking the
idea that he massacred civilians at Drogheda and other places.
There's apparently no contemporary evidence that he did.
(As I'm not a scholar and didn't do this research, I can't
argue about it -- I can just point people interested to the

This thread: