Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KiraM23)
    wait wait ... so do you need 90% in coursework and 90% exam individually?
    Or do you need an average total 90% e.g. get around 98&UMS coursework and ... 88% Exam, but it'd still balance out to 90%?
    Yep, spot on
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by can'tbeleftblank)
    Yep, spot on
    ...this...is different to Maths and English.. (which needs both coursework and exam >90% UMS each).... ... let's try for hope..
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KiraM23)
    ...this...is different to Maths and English.. (which needs both coursework and exam >90% UMS each).... ... let's try for hope..
    I'd have thought it would be the same on every A level :/
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by can'tbeleftblank)
    I'd have thought it would be the same on every A level :/
    no..no...well...
    For maths - you need 90% UMS for each C3 C4 exams in A2 to get an A*
    Same thing for English - need coursework and exam to be pretty much...90% each
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KiraM23)
    no..no...well...
    For maths - you need 90% UMS for each C3 C4 exams in A2 to get an A*
    Same thing for English - need coursework and exam to be pretty much...90% each
    Aww well....we'll just try our best and hope for the best!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KiraM23)
    YAAAY an actual answer! (I may not revise for the Protectorate that much...) They could ask the Rump but I doubt a question could pop up with Barebones. However, a question could cover both? I.e why did they fail?
    I've basically approached it strategically and revised everything up to the protectorate/restoration. We barely covered those areas at school and it seems the first question will always have an option for the first half of the course! Yeah, I was thinking they might put both the Rump and Barebones together. I'm just worried I might not know enough specific info to answer effectively. I guess we'll see....aaahhhhhh!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ellepotter)
    I've basically approached it strategically and revised everything up to the protectorate/restoration. We barely covered those areas at school and it seems the first question will always have an option for the first half of the course! Yeah, I was thinking they might put both the Rump and Barebones together. I'm just worried I might not know enough specific info to answer effectively. I guess we'll see....aaahhhhhh!
    Guaranteed question on first half of course - Personal rule,Civil war , execution etc.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What are the likely questions for the 30 marker? I'm alright with side taking for the 40 marker so will do that but I'm absolutely clueless for the 30 marker. Any help?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vkram96)
    What are the likely questions for the 30 marker? I'm alright with side taking for the 40 marker so will do that but I'm absolutely clueless for the 30 marker. Any help?
    Well, potentially anything apart from the controversy topics. Maybe Personal Rule and Restoration as they haven't come up in a while, but it's anyone's guess really.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    .


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    I think I forgot to put analysis at the end of my paragraphs I my essay - omg I'm panicking now! Why!? That's the easiest part!?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What type of analysis did you forget? Like no transition between paragraphs ?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by buzzingbarezoots)
    What type of analysis did you forget? Like no transition between paragraphs ?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Just the concluding lines-links at the end of each paragraph,
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Does anyone think the grade boundaries for this paper may be lower than normal? Both of the 30 marker knowledge question were on the earlier pre execution part the course. If some solely concentrated on the 2nd half than surely that will mean they will score lower!?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Why did people choose sides during the Civil War?
    Introduction
    There would have been no war unless the gentry had chosen sides. ‘War is a fearful thing’, remarked Neville Chamberlain in 1938, and civil war is even more fearful. Many tried to remain neutral and, indeed, probably only 15 per cent of the gentry actively fought on one side or the other. Many of those who supported the war effort, of either Parliament or the King, with money may have wished to stay neutral but had no choice because their area was controlled by either the Royalists or the Parliamentarians. However, enough Englishmen did choose sides to create a war and their motives need to be examined.
    Motives for choosing sides
    Constitutional issues
    For some, constitutional issues were the driving force behind their commitment. For Edmund Ludlow, who eventually became a convinced republican of radical tendencies, ‘the Nineteen Propositions were the principle foundation of the ensuing war.’
    Equally ‘conservatives’, such as Hyde, felt that the King’s rights were vital to a constitutional balance and that therefore the King not only had right on his side but his enemies were destroying the old foundations of English law and constitution.
    Religion
    For many, religion was a prime motive. Fear of Roman Catholicism was, as has been noted, one of the strongest forces in English life – a prejudice that ran from the top to the bottom of society. The King’s Roman Catholic associates made many deeply suspicious of him and genuinely worried that a royal victory, whatever Hyde’s moderate statements said to the contrary, would mean the triumph of Roman Catholicism. Interestingly, although no Catholics fought for Parliament, many of the Roman Catholics wished to remain neutral. On the other side, attacks on the Church of England by many Parliamentarians seemed to mean that the Anglican Church was in danger of being replaced by Presbyterianism or, even worse, by the radical Puritan sects which had sprung into life by 1642. The Laudian bishops had not been loved by many who still supported the Church of England. They were quite happy to see Laud fall – as one Royalist rather heartlessly referred to his captivity in the Tower, ‘Canterbury is still affatening’ – but the threat posed by Parliament to all bishops, including moderates such as Bishop Hall of Norwich, rang alarm bells and swung many back to the King as the defender of the Church of England.
    Of course, Presbyterians, Independents and religious radicals had no reason to support the King and every reason to support Parliament. Only from Parliament could the church reform that they longed for come. Parliament’s armies were filled with ‘the godly’ and, as Oliver Cromwell remarked, ‘religion was not the thing at first contested for, but God brought it to that pass in the end.’
    Local issues
    Local issues could often take precedence over national ones, or at least sway individuals in their allegiances. Leicestershire, for instance had been used to a long-standing feud between the Grey and Hastings families. A stern Puritan, Lord Grey of Groby of course supported Parliament with dynamism. Inevitably the Hastings supported the King in order to extend the feud, hoping to destroy the Greys. Leicestershire was split down the middle between the supporters of the two families as the Leicestershire gentry had always taken the lead from one or the other. In Suffolk, Sir Nathaniel Barnardiston was a strong Parliamentary supporter – again the lesser gentry were used to following his lead and did so. Self-interest obviously played a role – the Monopolists and Customs Farmers supported the Crown, they had no option if they were to have any hope of retrieving their loans.
    Economic interests
    Economic interests could even spill into war contracts; Northampton’s support for Parliament was not unconnected with the large boot and shoe contracts given by Parliament. Some of the great territorial aristocracy were Royalist, simply because their own power and status derived from the King and from the institution of kingship: they were all members of the same ‘trade union of the great.’ Magnates such as the Marquess of Newcastle, who spent over £900,000 on the Royalist cause, and the Marquis of Worcester, who spent over £700,000, saw a Parliamentary victory as a threat to their social and political power. They were to be proved correct. Other aristocrats, of course, did not. Warwick, Essex, Saye and Sele were probably motivated by political and religious principles that put them on Parliament’s side, but the majority of the aristocracy supported Charles with varying degrees of enthusiasm.
    Traditional loyalties
    Traditional loyalties could operate not only on a local level, enabling the leading gentry and aristocrats to get the lesser gentry to follow their lead, but on a national level. This was in the sense that the King was the traditional ruler whom many were accustomed to obey and revere, whatever misgivings individuals may have had about his conduct, and the idea of rebelling against him was unthinkable. In the last resort, the traditional reverence for monarchy reasserted itself partly because the King was seen by many as ‘the keystone that closeth up the arch of Government.’ War against the King simply equalled anarchy.
    Some Parliamentarians, of course, were also troubled by the concept of war against their sovereign, and two lines of thought were produced to reassure them:
    · The first, most widely used, was that the King was in the hands of ‘evil counsellors’ and the war was being fought to free him from them so that Parliament could then come to terms with him without his being led astray by these dark forces.
    · The other argument was that the war was not against kingship itself but against a king who had failed to live up to the ideals of kingship.
    The parliamentary declaration for ‘King and Parliament’ showed that for most the idea of actually fighting the King personally was unthinkable. The traditional loyalty to the sovereign sometimes overrode personal inclinations. There may have been many like Sir Edmund Verney, who sympathised with Parliament’s aims and had no reverence for bishops, but supported the King (and died for him at Edgehill) because ‘my conscience is only concerned…to follow my master…and [I] will not do so base a thing as to forsake him.’
    Mixed motives
    The motives for choosing sides for those below the gentry were as mixed. The poor probably made very few decisions – both armies were composed of at least 50 per cent ‘pressed men’ who, given a choice, would not have been soldiering. The deep-rooted fear of popery on which Parliamentary propaganda played, probably swung many of the small tradesmen, yeoman farmers and artisans – the classes in which Puritan leadings were strong – behind Parliament. Religion was a strong factor amongst the literate classes below the gentry, as Richard Baxter noted.
    For many, however, the point about lack of choice held. Stanley, Earl of Derby, simply forced the population in his area to join the Royalist cause, literally threatening to shoot them. Another Royalist in Somerset used economic pressure: ‘his tenants most of them holdeth their lands by rack rent, so that if they would not obey his command then out with them.’ If lesser gentry were used to following the lead of the greater then this was more pronounced with the ‘lower orders.’ Both Royalists and Parliamentarians were able to raise forces from their own tenants and retainers in a semi-feudal way.
    Conclusion
    Any discussion of the motives for choosing sides has to be generalised and incomplete. The Civil War split families, classes and districts and it is difficult to see one overriding motive for choosing sides. It should be remembered that most went to war reluctantly and without great enthusiasm. Many may simply have chosen the less of two evils and Sir Ralph Hopton, the Royalist commander, spoke for many when he wrote to his friend Sir William Waller, the Parliamentary general: ‘I detest this war without an enemy.’
    Why did so many wish to remain neutral in 1642?
    Key themes
    · Civil war is far more serious than fighting a foreign enemy. The first few months of the war saw attempts by individuals and counties to remain neutral.
    · John Morrill has found evidence of attempts at neutrality pacts between many counties. Even counties such as Norfolk, a strongly Parliamentarian one, showed reluctance to engage in conflict. Some of the Norfolk gentry merely voted money for the ‘defence of the country.’
    · On the county level, raising troops and then not allowing them to leave the county may seem strange. Countries raised troops legally through the Militia Ordinance or, if Royalist-inclined, the Commission of Array, but just because one or other of these legal ‘devices’ was used foes not imply wholehearted support for the side that had framed the legal device.
    Loyalty to county
    Englishmen still thought of their ‘country’, i.e. county, as much as, if not more, than they thought of national interests. Given that the vast majority of the population was not deeply committed to one side or the other, and that most viewed civil war as a disaster, many counties simply raised troops to defend their own county and to keep law and order at a time when it seemed to be dissolving. As the war went on this became a more unrealistic option; counties were dragged into war on a national level and the neutrality pacts between counties, designed to prevent the spread of war, broke down.
    Reasons for individuals wishing to remain neutral probable centred around the following:
    · Both Pym and Charles had shown themselves uncompromising. Pym’s use of the mob had aroused real fear among many of the gentry that the ‘lower orders’ could take over and so arming them was a very dangerous move. Charles, on the other hand, still appeared to be under the influence not only of the moderate constitutionalist Hyde, but papists and absolutist-minded courtiers. The Five Members Coup, his contacts with the Pope while attempting to raise funds, all left a fear that, given the chance, he would set up an absolutist monarchy. So, for many, both sides seemed to be equally dangerous. Paraphrasing a contemporary: ‘If Parliament wins we are invited to perpetual war, if the King should win, a tyranny.’
    · Despite support for Parliament among many of the London merchants, merchant communities in provincial towns such as Bristol, Leicester and even Puritan Norwich were fearful of war as it would disrupt trade and raise taxes. Civil war would mean the capture and looting of towns, and the merchants had a lot to lose.
    · For many, the terrible example of the Thirty Years War in Germany showed what could happen to a country racked by war. Parts of Germany had become a desert because of a war that had started over religion. A Norfolk petition of January 1643 warned of the ‘miserable spectacle of a German devastation.’
    · Very few of the gentry had any personal experience of war; they were completely out of their depth as far as fighting was concerned. Some of them had merely obeyed the Militia Ordinance or the Commission of Array in order to defend themselves against increasing social disorder. As Baxter remarked, ‘The war was started in our streets before King or Parliament had an army.’ Military preparations were seen as a way of actually keeping the lid on an increasingly explosive situation, however unrealistic that might have been.
    · If the merchants had much to lose by war, so had the gentry. They could find their lands wasted and their houses burnt, hence the desire expressed by many to keep the war out of their counties.
    · War would mean fighting neighbours and former friends or even family members.
    · Choosing the wrong side could be fatal. Someone on the losing side could have estates confiscated or be imprisoned, so many of the gentry tried either to delay a decision to commit themselves, a delay made harder after the parliamentary declaration on 6 September, or to give minimum support to one side.
    The causes of the civil war – historiography
    Of all events in English history the Civil War has been the subject of most debate. It has been discussed extensively since the seventeenth century.
    Contemporary accounts
    Several contemporaries who lived through the events of the 1640s tried to explain them and others wrote their memoirs with comments. The most important contemporary historians is Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon, who wrote the History of the Great Rebellion. He starts his account significantly in 1625, seeing the events of 1625-40 as important in creating a situation where some sort of a breakdown, if not war, was almost inevitable. Clarendon, the great Constitutional Royalist, had been at the centre of events as one of Charles’s advisers after the winter of 1642, and an adviser to his son in exile. His history contains somewhat biased portraits of contemporary politicians, and he is crucial of Charles’s and Laud’s policies in the 1630s. But he sees the Civil War as the result of a conspiracy by some self-seeking men, especially Pym, to seize power and destroy the rightful legal position of the King. Clarendon was a conservative, so his dislike of innovators in the 1630s is nothing like his dislike of the events of 1641-2, let alone the subsequent ‘revolution’ and execution of the King. Whatever his position, his account is the fullest contemporary account to chronicle and explain the upheavals.
    Edmund Ludlow, a Puritan country gentleman, who was to become a republican and therefore oppose not only monarchy itself but Oliver Cromwell’s Protectorate which he saw as a form of monarchy, wrote his memories in exile. To Ludlow, the Civil War was a direct result of Charles’s attempt, as he saw it, to become an absolutist monarch and Laud’s to destroy the Puritan Protestant nature of the Church of England.
    After the Restoration of Charles II, historians tended to follow the conservative line of Clarendon, seeing the Civil War as the ‘great rebellion’, a disastrous event triggered by Pym and his followers.
    Whig interpretation
    By the nineteenth century attitudes had changed. The political developments of the period, especially the 1832 Reform Act, seemed to show that the pattern of English history was one of gradual change towards more and more freedoms, the result of an inevitable rise in the power of Parliament and a corresponding evaporation in the power of the monarch. Put simply, Whig historians, as they were called, said history was about progress and progress could not be stopped. This idea that the central theme of English history was one of onward progress to freedom and democracy became an extremely powerful one, and to a degree has influenced how all English people look at their history. The Whig argument was that the Civil War was a result of an outdated feudal-style monarchy attempting to stop the ‘natural’ desire of Parliament to have more power.
    So, for Whig historians, English history showed that the natural course of history was towards democracy. The nineteenth century saw reform bills extending the vote in 1832, 1867 and 1884. Victorians believed in progress, science, engineering and medicine, so history was also about progress. On that analysis, Charles was preventing ‘progress’ that was inevitable and natural: the root cause of the breakdown of 1640 and the Civil War itself was the slow, but inevitable, rise of Parliament.
    The first great Whig historian was T B Macaulay whose History of England, written in the 1830s, was one of the most influential works of the nineteenth century, shaping the war English people saw their past. As has already been suggested, Macaulay’s view of English history as being progress caught the spirit of the Victorian age.
    In the 1880s S R Gardiner wrote his monumental history of the early and mid-seventeenth century. Gardiner took great care to use all the possible sources and his research was very thorough. Although later historians have questioned his conclusions, his great achievement has never been surpassed and, to a certain extent, all historians of the period ‘stand on his shoulders.’ To Gardiner, the Civil War had very long-term causes. As a Whig, the rise of Parliament was one of them. Gardiner called the events of 1640 onwards the Puritan Revolution, seeing Puritanism as not only a religious challenge to the Church of England, but a way of looking at the world which would incline people to be less respectful of traditional authority and more individualistic.
    Marxist interpretation
    With the rise in influence of Marxism, new interpretations came in the twentieth century. Marx had argued, like the Whigs, that there was a meaning to history, and history was progress. Unlike the Whigs, however, progress did not mean just parliamentary democracy, but eventually a communist state, ruled by the proletariat – the working class. To Marx, economics was the force that changed history. As classes became more economically powerful they overthrew the ruling class and took power themselves. ‘All history is the history of the class struggle’, wrote Marx. Therefore, in Marxist terms, the feudal system was represented by Charles and it was overthrown by the rising gentry in Parliament – the middle class.
    The two leading Marxist-influenced historians are R H Tawney and Christopher Hill. Hill developed the clearest Marxist interpretation of the whole period 1603-60. For Hill, Puritanism provided the driving force for change because of its emphasis on hard work, and individualism suited the rising gentry who were getting richer as the Crown got poorer. Hill’s many distinguished works on the period came close to being an unchallenged interpretation by the early 1960s, even among those who could not, in any way, be called Marxists.
    Recent interpretations
    In the last 30 years or so, however, there have been two developments in the way the seventeenth century has been viewed. Firstly, there has been an explosion of published work, making the period 1603-60 possibly the most written about of all periods in English history. much of this work modified the Whig and Marxist views.
    L Stone argued that it was not so much a ‘rose of the gentry’, as suggested by Tawney, that upset the balance but a decline in the power and influence of the aristocracy – the King’s natural supporters. Alan Everett and other ‘local’ historians argued that our view of the period was distorted by looking at what happened at Court and in Parliament. For most of the gentry, it was local conditions and situations that were important. Perez Zagorin argued that the most significant split in society was not an economic/religious one but a cultural one. In his Court and Country, he argued that Court culture cut itself off from the lives and attitudes of the country gentry, so creating a gulf which could not be bridged. As more works appeared by historians such as D Hirst, G Alymer, C Holmes and J Morrill, the picture painted by the Whig and Marxist historians became increasingly modified, but without an interpretation emerging that seemed to cover the whole period.
    In the 1970s a direct attack on the whole basis of the Marxist thesis was made by Robert Ashton in his The English Civil War – Conservatism and Revolution. Ashton argued that the gentry who formed the anti-Court consensus of 1640 were not politically aggressive, economically self-confident, trying to overthrow a neo-feudal monarchical system, but rather conservatives trying to go back to the ‘old constitution’ that Charles had undermined. It was Charles who was the ‘progressive’, the gentry who were the reactionaries – a reversal of the Marxist thesis. Ashton still accepted that there were long-term influences at work in the realm of ideas and that problems existed long before 1640.
    Revisionism
    However, a more ‘extreme’ view of the period followed. Conrad Russell and, more strongly, Kevin Sharpe, took the view that, in fact, nothing went really wrong until 1637 and that there were no long-term causes at all. Historians who took this view were soon labelled revisionists. Lately, the revisionists themselves have been subject to revision and there are signs in the work of historians such as Ronald Hutton and Derek Hirst of a rejection of the more extreme revisionist ideas.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hi Guys,

    I know this is a massive ask but is there anyone out there who would have a look through my history essays please? I'm in A2 on the Edexcel board. I'm not too concerned about my knowledge, more just about how I write my essays. I need AAA to get into Durham. If you could, please get back to me! Thanks!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesAllum)
    Hi Guys,

    I know this is a massive ask but is there anyone out there who would have a look through my history essays please? I'm in A2 on the Edexcel board. I'm not too concerned about my knowledge, more just about how I write my essays. I need AAA to get into Durham. If you could, please get back to me! Thanks!
    hey! feel free to PM me
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesAllum)
    Hi Guys,

    I know this is a massive ask but is there anyone out there who would have a look through my history essays please? I'm in A2 on the Edexcel board. I'm not too concerned about my knowledge, more just about how I write my essays. I need AAA to get into Durham. If you could, please get back to me! Thanks!

    Hey, I'd be more than happy to!
    I need A*AA for Durham, and hoping to get my A* in History
    Feel free to PM me.
    If its helpful maybe we could exchange resources etc?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Has anybody used any other books/sites other than Sharp to get details on side-taking? My teacher said we need extensive research to differentiate from other essays with own knowledge.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.