Scotch-Irish-L Archives

Archiver > Scotch-Irish > 2005-07 > 1121107078


From: "Edward Andrews" <>
Subject: RE: [Sc-Ir] Beatty
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:37:58 +0100
In-Reply-To: <005001c58641$1de106d0$51889144@freda4lgfx5uu0>


I couldn't give you a reading list, for quite honestly I haven't kept up to
speed on the English Civil War. I'd send you to C V Wedgewood and
Christopher Hill, but they are ages old - kind of 40 years
As far as the Scottish bit, I find Patterson A Land Afflicted Scotland and
the Covenanter Ward 1638 - 1690: John Donald 1998 ISBN 0-85976-486-9 is as
good as you need unless you are going into very local stuff. In any case
there is a good Bibliography.
On Ireland, Haven't a clue. There has been so much new writing about Irish
History in the past 30 years that there is good stuff out there.
For 1641 there is Ulster 1641 Aspects of the Rising: Ed MacCuarta Belfast
1993. ISBN 0-85389-591-0. This too has got a good Bibliography. No Idea
about the Cromwellian conquest. Mind you from a Genealogical point of view
that can be very important, but I haven't looked at it since about 1967.
I wasn't really wanting to get into a session. I merely wanted to suggest
that to understand the period you begin with a riot in Edinburgh rather than
the philosophy of the relationships between King and the emerging middle
class. No matter how you do it, things are difficult but you are beginning
with real actions. 1641 means that you have to look at Stafford / Wentworth,
but again his ties back to Scotland and the Irish Presbyterians who are so
different from Scottish Presbyterians, and so it goes on.
Edward Andrews

-----Original Message-----
From: fredastewart [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 6:51 PM
To: Edward Andrews
Subject: Re: [Sc-Ir] Beatty

Hello Edward - In attempting to understand the basis of many of these wars,
I also find much of the available information confusing. You are correct in
saying it has an anglo slant to it, but being Scot-Ulster Scot I suppose I
would naturally have that opinion. Would you consider citing some of your
sources as I would appreciate being able to get a more evenly balanced
viewpoint.
Freda Stewart
Calgary, Alberta



----- Original Message -----
From: "Edward Andrews" <>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 7:54 AM
Subject: RE: [Sc-Ir] Beatty


> 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
> sequence.
> 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
> To:
> 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
> book).
>
>
>
>




This thread: