Civil Wars?

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,477
Dispargum
How many civil wars are not based on a desire by one of the factions to be independent of the other?
 
Sep 2016
1,280
Georgia
I probably could argue that without the English Civil War, there would not have been anything in 1688.
How ? King wouldn't be overthrown ? Such things also happened before English Revolution.

Edward II was deposed by Isabelle and Roger Mortimer, who also assembled Parliament in 1327 to make their actions legitimate. Henry IV assembled Parliament as well in 1499 to finally overthrow Richard II and show that his rule is legitimate.

Coalition under leadership of Simon de Monfort fought against the King Henry III and even captured him. Henry III and his son Edward ( future king ) were imprisoned. Simon de Monfort at the same time assembled a new Parliament in 1265. Not to mention, that war started because Henry III rejected Provisions of Oxford ( 1258 ) and Provisions of Westminster ( 1259 ).

Prince William III of Orange was the nephew of James II, Charles II and grandson of Charles I. He also married Mary Stuart (daughter of James II ). It's not like he didn't have a claim to the throne.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2019
868
Serbia
Do wars for independence count as civil wars? If yes I would put the Polish Uprisings against Russia and the First Serbian Uprising. If not the I would say the Jacobite Rebellions.
 

Asherman

Forum Staff
May 2013
3,406
Albuquerque, NM
As in so many cases our attention is drawn to the Civil Wars that tore apart the Roman Republic, and ended in the brief stability of Augustus. After Nero, Civil Wars returned as one politician/General after another struggled with one another to be sole ruler of Rome and all its dominions. The problems of administering an Empire too large to effectively govern given the technology of the times, and Diocletian's division of administration failed and War returned as Constantine legitimized Christianity and moved his capitol to Byzantium. The Civil Wars of Rome were very rarely about independence, but rather who would govern as sole arbiter of public policy.

The English Glorious Revolution, the French and Russian Revolutions were Civil Wars not of independence, but to replace a Government that could no longer be tolerated by the "have not" crowds. This underscores the social/political, the Civil nature of Revolution. There are exceptions, the Jewish Revolt was to shake off the heavy hand of Rome ... so was it a Revolution, a Civil War, neither or both?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Olleus
Sep 2016
1,280
Georgia
Is that your only take away from the English Civil war?
What another take away there should be ? That Parliament ruled without a King and then it was followed with usurpation of power by Oliver Cromwell ? Well, such things never happened again in England. Success in first Anglo - Dutch war or creation of New Model Army ? Cromwell's actions in Ireland ? How Oliver Cromwell divided England into military districts ruled by Army Major Generals who answered only to him in 1655 ?

1688 also wouldn't happen without English Reformation in 16th century and anti-catholic hysteria that followed it.
 
Last edited:
Mar 2019
1,845
Kansas
What another take away there should be ? .
Well the fact that when Charles II came back during the restoration it was at the pleasure of the Parliament. A right that remains to this day

The other important element was the reversal of the concept that rulers derive their authority direct from God . After Charles I This was changed to the more modern concept that a ruler rules as a contract between themselves and their people.

This change is absolutely fundamental to the origins and evolution of the Westminster System. Which to date has been the most successful democratic system in the world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Druid
Sep 2016
1,280
Georgia
Well the fact that when Charles II came back during the restoration it was at the pleasure of the Parliament. A right that remains to this day.

The other important element was the reversal of the concept that rulers derive their authority direct from God . After Charles I This was changed to the more modern concept that a ruler rules as a contract between themselves and their people.
It happened thanks to General George Monck. He defeated John Lambert, who tried to usurp power in 1659. Lambert prevented a seating of Parliament, caused the doors of the House of Commons to be shut and the members kept out. He was also appointed major-general of all the forces in England and Scotland. Monck was in command of the English forces in Scotland and marched southward. Lambert's whole army eventually deserted and General Monck entered London in February 1660. Monck allowed Presbyterian members, "secluded" in Pride's Purge of 1648, to re-enter Parliament in 1660.The reconstituted Long Parliament dissolved itself after preparing legislation for a new Convention Parliament to be summoned. The new elected Convention Parliament was predominantly Royalist. Monck himself was elected MP.

You see, Trial of Charles I was unlawful and illegitimate. Pride's Purge happened in December of 1648, when Colonel Pride forcibly removed from the Long Parliament all those who were not supporters of the Independents and who wanted to continue negotiating with Charles. So what was left is known as ,, Rump Parliament ''. It was not legitimate in any way. It had no authority to judge Charles and especially sentence him to death.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Druid