The Student Room Group

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

Scroll to see replies

Original post by SiriusCybernetics
Since you're good at the ol' historiography, do you mind if I ask you a question?

Is Trevor-Roper's theory that the Civil War was caused by the 'depressed gentry' revisionist, as it opposes the Marxist conception of rising gentry, or is it a Whig theory as it is also stressing a longue duree interpretation?


I can't say for certain what it is, but I would suggest it isn't revisionist: his ideas on this came mostly in the 50s and 60s, and the label of "revisionism" is only really applied from the late 1970s onwards. I think the most appropriate label would be "anti-Marxist" - it is a direct reaction to the prevailing Marxist views. What the crucial differences between revisionism and anti-Marxism are, though, I honestly couldn't say - I think it's mostly a matter of timing.
Original post by Muppetmad
I can't say for certain what it is, but I would suggest it isn't revisionist: his ideas on this came mostly in the 50s and 60s, and the label of "revisionism" is only really applied from the late 1970s onwards. I think the most appropriate label would be "anti-Marxist" - it is a direct reaction to the prevailing Marxist views. What the crucial differences between revisionism and anti-Marxism are, though, I honestly couldn't say - I think it's mostly a matter of timing.


Yeah, you're right about it not being revisionist. I'm also disinclined to use proto-revisionist. as my history teacher seems to be of the opinion that revisionism is basically localism and contingencies.

The 'depressed gentry' seems quite teleological, and on Trevor-Roper's wiki page it says he's a staunch believer in free will. Neo-Whig perhaps? Annales-influenced?

But, I suppose in the exam there's no real need to label them, I presume I'd just introduce him by saying 'However, this Marxist interpretation is disputed by Trevor-Roper...'
Yeah, if you're not 100% sure then you don't necessarily need to label it. I wish I could be more help, but I haven't studied Trevor-Roper in any great detail.
(edited 10 years ago)
Just wondering if anyone can help, I'm really struggling trying to plan essays but i have no idea what essays would come up after the civil war, do you think they would ask about the end/failures of the commonwealth and protectorate separately or together as why the interregnum period ended as a whole. whats peoples opinions on the likeliness of 1660-7 coming up?
Original post by lalalalaalla
Just wondering if anyone can help, I'm really struggling trying to plan essays but i have no idea what essays would come up after the civil war, do you think they would ask about the end/failures of the commonwealth and protectorate separately or together as why the interregnum period ended as a whole. whats peoples opinions on the likeliness of 1660-7 coming up?


They haven't asked about the interregnum as a whole yet so I doubt it, but I suppose they could. I think it is too wide of a period for the 30 mark questions anyway.

Regarding restoration, it has come up 3 times and was in 2011 & 2012. I doubt that they will go for it again. I was advised that a question on the settlement is more likely to come up as it has only come up once before.
(edited 10 years ago)
Which of the two source questions does everyone prefer? I'm literally the only one in my class of 30 who will be doing the Cromwell/Protectorate question instead of the side-taking question. Side taking just seems like too much of a hassle w/ the different theories & knowledge of local counties. The protectorate seems more straightforward in that you just need knowledge of the time period. Or am I getting something wrong there?
(edited 10 years ago)
It's all a matter of personal preference, I think. I'm more comfortable with side-taking personally, but I've also revised Cromwell so I can do either side if necessary. I wouldn't worry about it, honestly.
Original post by Muppetmad
It's all a matter of personal preference, I think. I'm more comfortable with side-taking personally, but I've also revised Cromwell so I can do either side if necessary. I wouldn't worry about it, honestly.


Am I right to assume that its only knowledge of the issues during the protectorate that is required? So nothing like the revisionist/Marxist/whighist theories? Sorry, my teacher did not go over much other than general period knowledge because he expects us all to go with side-taking.
Original post by Use Err Name
Am I right to assume that its only knowledge of the issues during the protectorate that is required? So nothing like the revisionist/Marxist/whighist theories? Sorry, my teacher did not go over much other than general period knowledge because he expects us all to go with side-taking.


I think a loose knowledge of the key historical movements for the protectorate would be fine, and if you bring in a historian or two of your own in the exam it would help if you could say what school of thought they're from.

So, for the protectorate, the basics to remember are that up until the 50s you have the domination of Whig perspectives - historians who are normally very sympathetic about Cromwell. It's from then or thereabouts onwards that you see that view being challenged until the 80s, 90s and onwards where you get very nuanced perspectives.
(edited 10 years ago)
I'm a bit confused for the side-taking question - what's regionalism?

How's it different from localism and what would you say about it?
Original post by SiriusCybernetics
I'm a bit confused for the side-taking question - what's regionalism?

How's it different from localism and what would you say about it?


Hmmm... it's not a term I've encountered personally; if it came up in the exam I would honestly assume it's synonymous with localism. Somebody else may be able to correct me on that, though.
Original post by Muppetmad
Hmmm... it's not a term I've encountered personally; if it came up in the exam I would honestly assume it's synonymous with localism. Somebody else may be able to correct me on that, though.


phew, good to know. I found it on one of my teacher's powerpoints in which he was saying 'questions on localism, neutralism and regionalism haven't come up yet'. I would hazard a guess he means economic factors ( the south-east = more arable = more trade = more rising gentry = more parliamentarians) but I'm not sure.
What questions do you guys reckon are coming up this year? I have a suspicion that there might be another Civil War question again, probably in regards to 'Royalist Failures', 'Role of Pym' or 'Impact of the N.M.A' but I'm not completely sure, although I think it would be good to have an idea in order to better focus my revision. Any other suggestions??
Reply 33
Original post by Use Err Name
They haven't asked about the interregnum as a whole yet so I doubt it, but I suppose they could. I think it is too wide of a period for the 30 mark questions anyway.

Regarding restoration, it has come up 3 times and was in 2011 & 2012. I doubt that they will go for it again. I was advised that a question on the settlement is more likely to come up as it has only come up once before.


i'm confused, there have only been 3 papers for unit 3. June 10 11 and 12

June 10 was personal rule and the search for settlement
11 was civil war and restoration
12 was Personal rule and restoration

I agree that restoration wont come up,

I think it will be one civil war and one search for
Settlement with outside chance of Personal rule,

Btw if the question on royalist mistakes comes up what what ure guys' paras be on?
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Equal
i'm confused, there have only been 3 papers for unit 3. June 10 11 and 12

June 10 was personal rule and the search for settlement
11 was civil war and restoration
12 was Personal rule and restoration

I agree that restoration wont come up,

I think it will be one civil war and one search for
Settlement with outside chance of Personal rule,

Btw if the question on royalist mistakes comes up what what ure guys' paras be on?


Yeah you're right, sorry, I was counting the specimen which also included the restoration. I think with the civil war they will focus on why the royalists lost, because previous questions have looked primarily at Parliament's strengths. Ideally though I would prefer something on the personal rule.

For Royalist mistakes, I would talk about organisation (Commissions of Array after Militia Ordinance, inefficiency of county committees, Oxford parliament) & alliance (Cessation Treaty). Obviously that would be too short alone but I would contrast it with what parliament did (their ordinances, their county committees, Scottish Convenant, Eastern Assoc., NMA etc.)

Anyone got any other ideas for a question like that?
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by lilzoldier
What questions do you guys reckon are coming up this year? I have a suspicion that there might be another Civil War question again, probably in regards to 'Royalist Failures', 'Role of Pym' or 'Impact of the N.M.A' but I'm not completely sure, although I think it would be good to have an idea in order to better focus my revision. Any other suggestions??


I thinking along those lines as well. If they were to ask about the personal rule (unlikely though), it would probably be on Scotland & Ireland - so you'd primarily talk about Strafford in Ireland & the effect of Laudianism in Scotland. That's just wishful thinking though, haha. The personal rule is just so simple, I wish I was one year older and did last years exam, would've aced it.
Reply 36
I'm hoping others have more ideas for why royalists lost, A question phrased like that would be annoying,
Any other sort of civil war question and im fine

For personal rule i know about charles policies and why he abandoned personal rule,

However for why he abandoned personal rule i only have 3 paras: opposition to his financial policies, opposition to laud, scottish crisis.

What else would you guys write about?
Reply 37
I guess if Civil War came up, they would most likely ask about the causes, but I suppose they could ask why Royalists were defeated (but that's pretty much the same question as why Parliament won - so I don't think it's likely).

The only time period left to ask would be the Rump, so I guess the question could be on the success of the Rump.
Original post by Equal
I'm hoping others have more ideas for why royalists lost, A question phrased like that would be annoying,
Any other sort of civil war question and im fine

For personal rule i know about charles policies and why he abandoned personal rule,

However for why he abandoned personal rule i only have 3 paras: opposition to his financial policies, opposition to laud, scottish crisis.

What else would you guys write about?


That's all I have as well. Have you been using Scarboro's 1625-1660?
Reply 39
Yeah i used scarboros and david sharpes

Guys correct me if im wrong but they can only ask questions from
The specification right?

And in the spec the four points for question a are:
1629-40
Why parl won, why royals lost, econmic factors
1646-53
1660-7


We pretty much know it wont be 1660-7

So hast to be 2 of other three

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending