A2 Edexcel Unit 3: Revolution, Republic and Restoration, 1629-67 (JUNE 2013)

Ah, a fellow Civil War-ian! Hmmm, yes, it isn't easy. I personally really enjoy it, but it isn't easy.

I'm basically revising through learning dates for events and the significance of those events - I find everything neatly fits into place after that. I do need to do some quotation learning for historians though for the part B (and part A to an extent).

I'm probably most confident from the years 1638-42, there's lots of events but they all seem to have the same purpose so that makes essays fairly straightforward.

When you say different interpretations of history, I'm assuming you mean Marxist, Whig etc.? If so, I can type up a quick time line of historiography for the side-taking side for part B and briefly explain the key differences between them. Let me know if this would be helpful.

Ah, a fellow Civil War-ian! Hmmm, yes, it isn't easy. I personally really enjoy it, but it isn't easy.

I'm basically revising through learning dates for events and the significance of those events - I find everything neatly fits into place after that. I do need to do some quotation learning for historians though for the part B (and part A to an extent).

I'm probably most confident from the years 1638-42, there's lots of events but they all seem to have the same purpose so that makes essays fairly straightforward.

When you say different interpretations of history, I'm assuming you mean Marxist, Whig etc.? If so, I can type up a quick time line of historiography for the side-taking side for part B and briefly explain the key differences between them. Let me know if this would be helpful.

Edit for above: Honestly, I'm aiming for an A* - I need an A* in one of my subjects to meet my uni offer, and I think history is the probably most likely subject I could get it in.

Right! A brief summary of historiography for side taking, hope it's useful.

The 1950s and 1960s was dominated predominantly by Marxist interpretations (I haven't found Whig interpretations playing a big role, that plays a greater role for the Cromwell side of the part B). Marxist interpretations in this time can be fairly easily spotted by their emphasis on class – Brian Manning (though writing this mostly in the 1970s) argues, in brief, that parliament is the party of the people and the Royalists are party of the ruling elite. There's a bit more to it than that, but that's an easy summary of it.



The 1970s saw an evolution of this Marxist ideology. Basically, there were lots of local studies done which backed up Marxist ideas (one can refer to this as neo-Marxism). Christopher Hill, based on the idea of others, argues that forest and wasteland is where there isn't much development and therefore where radicalism thrived, whilst arable land was more developed and therefore controlled by the established clergy. Underdown famously agreed with this – he conducted a study of the West Country and concluded that forest, pasture and cloth-making regions were predominantly Puritan and parliamentarian, whilst arable regions were predominantly Anglican and Royalist. John Morrill disagreed, suggesting that pasture and arable settlements are not distinct social entities from woodland settlements. Hughes wrote in the 90s that the Underdown thesis was “flawed”.



The 1980s saw John Morrill present his alternative: that religion was the force which pushed activists forward, accounting for the determination of allegiance. Such a stance against the prevailing Marxist/neo-Marxist views was typical of the revisionist school of thought. Some argued that for the Royalists this wasn't the case; social factors played a greater role. Once again, Hughes disagreed with both perspectives when writing in the 90s, arguing that religion is interwoven with social, political and economic attitudes.


The 1990s onwards has seen the development of revisionist perspectives, focusing especially on religion and social status (looking particularly at the “middling sorts”, who some believe were predominantly Puritan and therefore likely to support parliament). It is here, though, that post-revisionism has thrived under Hughes and others, which places significant emphasis on localism and neutralism: people didn't want the war, and were determined to not choose sides when possible. When forced to, they towed the line of least resistance. Local studies from Andy Wood have emphasised the divide within social groups, proving that the Underdown thesis fails. Malcolm Smuts went as far as to suggest an attempt to form simple models is futile – it's clearly more complex than that!

Edit for above: Honestly, I'm aiming for an A* - I need an A* in one of my subjects to meet my uni offer, and I think history is the probably most likely subject I could get it in.

Right! A brief summary of historiography for side taking, hope it's useful.

The 1950s and 1960s was dominated predominantly by Marxist interpretations (I haven't found Whig interpretations playing a big role, that plays a greater role for the Cromwell side of the part B). Marxist interpretations in this time can be fairly easily spotted by their emphasis on class – Brian Manning (though writing this mostly in the 1970s) argues, in brief, that parliament is the party of the people and the Royalists are party of the ruling elite. There's a bit more to it than that, but that's an easy summary of it.



The 1970s saw an evolution of this Marxist ideology. Basically, there were lots of local studies done which backed up Marxist ideas (one can refer to this as neo-Marxism). Christopher Hill, based on the idea of others, argues that forest and wasteland is where there isn't much development and therefore where radicalism thrived, whilst arable land was more developed and therefore controlled by the established clergy. Underdown famously agreed with this – he conducted a study of the West Country and concluded that forest, pasture and cloth-making regions were predominantly Puritan and parliamentarian, whilst arable regions were predominantly Anglican and Royalist. John Morrill disagreed, suggesting that pasture and arable settlements are not distinct social entities from woodland settlements. Hughes wrote in the 90s that the Underdown thesis was “flawed”.



The 1980s saw John Morrill present his alternative: that religion was the force which pushed activists forward, accounting for the determination of allegiance. Such a stance against the prevailing Marxist/neo-Marxist views was typical of the revisionist school of thought. Some argued that for the Royalists this wasn't the case; social factors played a greater role. Once again, Hughes disagreed with both perspectives when writing in the 90s, arguing that religion is interwoven with social, political and economic attitudes.


The 1990s onwards has seen the development of revisionist perspectives, focusing especially on religion and social status (looking particularly at the “middling sorts”, who some believe were predominantly Puritan and therefore likely to support parliament). It is here, though, that post-revisionism has thrived under Hughes and others, which places significant emphasis on localism and neutralism: people didn't want the war, and were determined to not choose sides when possible. When forced to, they towed the line of least resistance. Local studies from Andy Wood have emphasised the divide within social groups, proving that the Underdown thesis fails. Malcolm Smuts went as far as to suggest an attempt to form simple models is futile – it's clearly more complex than that!

Hey! Hope revision is going well Just wanted to know, is it necessary to know specific historians for the interpretations part? Or is it sufficient just to know the different interpretations?

Heya! Revision isn't going too badly thank you.

It is a very good idea to know specific historians for part B (I can't say for sure whether it is necessary but since you said you want an A grade I'd say yes); it will get you great marks for extra knowledge. The easiest way to get historians' interpretations is to simply go through past papers and find the sources they used - you can then pull out the key points and paraphrase it in an essay. You can look at the dates and content of the sources to tell whether they're Marxist, revisionist etc. It isn't always clear though (the difference between revisionism and post-revisionism is a little blurred) so if in doubt, don't worry about just taking a stab at it.

.

.

Do you reckon I'll be all right for part A if I just revise up to the regicide?

Do you reckon I'll be all right for part A if I just revise up to the regicide? On the past papers they always seem to have one question on the events 1629-1649 and then one on the Interregnum/Restoration.

My college has only done up to the Barebones parliament anyway (and we only spent a couple of weeks on the events post-regicide) and I'm more comfortable with the pre-regicide stuff, of which the questions seem to entail:



Also has anyone got any resources pertaining to the structuring of Part A and Part B questions? Or any model answers? I'm having real problems with it.

Thanks

Gah, I swear the period between 1649 and 1653 is the period I'm least happy with I just want one nice question, maybe one on why parliament won the First Civil War?

What structure does everyone use for the two essay questions?

Also, my bets on something on the Rump Parliament with some element of the Civil War.

Edit for above: Honestly, I'm aiming for an A* - I need an A* in one of my subjects to meet my uni offer, and I think history is the probably most likely subject I could get it in.

Right! A brief summary of historiography for side taking, hope it's useful.

The 1950s and 1960s was dominated predominantly by Marxist interpretations (I haven't found Whig interpretations playing a big role, that plays a greater role for the Cromwell side of the part B). Marxist interpretations in this time can be fairly easily spotted by their emphasis on class – Brian Manning (though writing this mostly in the 1970s) argues, in brief, that parliament is the party of the people and the Royalists are party of the ruling elite. There's a bit more to it than that, but that's an easy summary of it.



The 1970s saw an evolution of this Marxist ideology. Basically, there were lots of local studies done which backed up Marxist ideas (one can refer to this as neo-Marxism). Christopher Hill, based on the idea of others, argues that forest and wasteland is where there isn't much development and therefore where radicalism thrived, whilst arable land was more developed and therefore controlled by the established clergy. Underdown famously agreed with this – he conducted a study of the West Country and concluded that forest, pasture and cloth-making regions were predominantly Puritan and parliamentarian, whilst arable regions were predominantly Anglican and Royalist. John Morrill disagreed, suggesting that pasture and arable settlements are not distinct social entities from woodland settlements. Hughes wrote in the 90s that the Underdown thesis was “flawed”.



The 1980s saw John Morrill present his alternative: that religion was the force which pushed activists forward, accounting for the determination of allegiance. Such a stance against the prevailing Marxist/neo-Marxist views was typical of the revisionist school of thought. Some argued that for the Royalists this wasn't the case; social factors played a greater role. Once again, Hughes disagreed with both perspectives when writing in the 90s, arguing that religion is interwoven with social, political and economic attitudes.


The 1990s onwards has seen the development of revisionist perspectives, focusing especially on religion and social status (looking particularly at the “middling sorts”, who some believe were predominantly Puritan and therefore likely to support parliament). It is here, though, that post-revisionism has thrived under Hughes and others, which places significant emphasis on localism and neutralism: people didn't want the war, and were determined to not choose sides when possible. When forced to, they towed the line of least resistance. Local studies from Andy Wood have emphasised the divide within social groups, proving that the Underdown thesis fails. Malcolm Smuts went as far as to suggest an attempt to form simple models is futile – it's clearly more complex than that!