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

Watch
Use Err Name
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#1
Sooo I have a feeling that practically nobody on TSR is doing this topic, but it's worth a try, right?

So, to those of you who are doing this wretched topic, could you explain the key points of the different interpretations of history? My teacher seems to have ignored their existence and hasn't really covered them :/ Also, generally speaking, how are you revising this topic & what period you feel most confident in?
0
reply
Muppetmad
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#2
Report 7 years ago
#2
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.
0
reply
Use Err Name
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#3
(Original post by Muppetmad)
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.
Me too w/ regards to 1638-42, it simply seems to concern parliament punishing Charles until he fights back. I quite like the personal rule too. And yes please! That would be fantastic
0
reply
Use Err Name
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#4
(Original post by Muppetmad)
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.
Out of interest, what grade are you aiming for? I need an A
0
reply
Muppetmad
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#5
Report 7 years ago
#5
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!
0
reply
Use Err Name
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#6
(Original post by Muppetmad)
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!
Very useful! Thank you so much! And on the A*, good luck! I need AAA for my offer so I guess I should consider myself lucky Besides, I couldn't handle the 90% average, in history or in my other subjects.
0
reply
Use Err Name
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#7
(Original post by Muppetmad)
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?
0
reply
Muppetmad
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#8
Report 7 years ago
#8
(Original post by Use Err Name)
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.
0
reply
Use Err Name
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#9
(Original post by Muppetmad)
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.
Ah okay. That sounds like a plan! Thanks a lot
0
reply
SiriusCybernetics
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#10
Report 7 years ago
#10
(Original post by Use Err Name)
.
(Original post by Muppetmad)
.
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:

  • Reasons for the success/ failure of the Personal Rule
  • Reasons for the outbreak of the Civil War (but will a question on this come up? As this is basically the part B sidetaking question)
  • Reasons why Parliament won the Civil War
  • Reasons for the failure to reach a post-war settlement


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
0
reply
Muppetmad
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#11
Report 7 years ago
#11
(Original post by SiriusCybernetics)
Do you reckon I'll be all right for part A if I just revise up to the regicide?
I honestly couldn't say. If a pattern has emerged, then fair enough, but all you need are the chief examiners to go "Let's mix it up a bit this year" and that can all go out of the window. I'd personally revise up to Barebones if you can, because you never know what knowledge you may need.
0
reply
Use Err Name
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#12
(Original post by SiriusCybernetics)
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:

  • Reasons for the success/ failure of the Personal Rule
  • Reasons for the outbreak of the Civil War (but will a question on this come up? As this is basically the part B sidetaking question)
  • Reasons why Parliament won the Civil War
  • Reasons for the failure to reach a post-war settlement


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
I've been advised by my teacher to expect a question on 1646-53, as it has only been asked once while the Personal Rule & Civil War have been asked twice. Restoration has come up 3 times, so my teacher didn't even bother covering it haha. So I think that it would probably be wise to cover 46-53. I'm also thinking that it might be alongside a question on the Civil War since it was the personal rule alongside the restoration last year. .

Obviously this is all guesswork though
0
reply
Muppetmad
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#13
Report 7 years ago
#13
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?
1
reply
SiriusCybernetics
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#14
Report 7 years ago
#14
(Original post by Muppetmad)
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?
Haha, I'm praying for that question as well, I could do that one in my sleep. The politics of personal rule and settlement are too nuanced and unconsolidated for me to get my head around, give me a good definitive war any day.

How is everybody getting along with revision?

I'm just reading through about 3 separate revision guides and www.british-civil-wars.co.uk

I hope it'll stick, can anyone recommend any other methods?

This guy has also got some interesting stuff about English Civil War historiography on his blog: http://www.investigationsofadog.co.u...nism/#more-199
0
reply
Use Err Name
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#15
I'm probably most confident w/ post civil war/pre Lord Protectorship o.O

I'm just reading through notes at the moment although I'll probably start condensing them soon. I've left A2 a bit late because I had 2 AS resits :/
0
reply
Delta123
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#16
Report 6 years ago
#16
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.
0
reply
SiriusCybernetics
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#17
Report 6 years ago
#17
(Original post by Delta123)
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.

I really need to find out the structure for the essay questions as well.

For Part A I use:
  • Point
  • Evidence
  • Explanation
  • Link (To the main point of the paragraph)



For Part B I have no idea and any help would really be appreciated from anyone
0
reply
muksi
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#18
Report 6 years ago
#18
Hi everyone! Nice to finally find people doing this option.

Part B is about mostly using the sources and cross referencing as well as slipping in little bits of own knowledge. I usually write it in a similar-ish way to Part A, just more source reliant.

The fact that the personal rule may not come up makes me sad. 1646-53 I've just about managed to get my head around.
0
reply
minthumbugs
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#19
Report 6 years ago
#19
I absolutely detest this module and I didn't do great on the coursework so need to do well on it for the part B questions my teacher told us to make a plan of for and against and make sure to include what the sources don't mention as well
0
reply
SiriusCybernetics
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#20
Report 6 years ago
#20
(Original post by Muppetmad)
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!
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?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

If you're planning on going to uni this year, would any of these financial reasons stop you?

Not being able to work now to save up for uni (92)
13.81%
Reduced household income due to coronavirus means I can't afford to go (56)
8.41%
Lack of part-time jobs to support me while I'm at uni (85)
12.76%
Lack of graduate job prospects when I finish uni (80)
12.01%
Other reasons are stopping me going (86)
12.91%
Nothing is stopping me going (267)
40.09%

Watched Threads

View All