• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

english civil war

Extracts from this document...


Essay: Why did the civil war break out in 1640? The English civil war, this period was otherwise known as the English revolution due to its significance left a very bold mark in history; it has sculpted the way we live today, and has caused shirt and long-termed effects. It has dramatically changed parliament, society and royalty, and the ruling of our country. In this essay I am aiming to achieve the conclusion of why the civil war broke out, and hopefully will reach an informative conclusion. What is a civil war? A civil war is a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country. Many of them are well known ands studied in history, and the English civil war is one of them. In 1600's, parliament and king ruled England. Lives were very different to ours, but most of the decisions that were made then have influenced and created ways of life today. There was no technology, or hygiene, and everyone was divided into a social group, depending on status or wealth. The civil war was conflict between power for king and parliament, and also Catholicism and Protestantism. Parliament was divided into the House of Commons and the house or lords, two very well - known groups today. Charles I was the reigning king at the time, He was son of James I and Anne of Denmark, and was born in 1600 in England. Charles was heir to the throne, and was crowned at the age of 25, in 1625. ...read more.


The parliament supporters were called roundheads. They wore pot helmets to protect their heads, iron back and breastplates; a charge of gunpowder and an iron gauntlet protected their right arm. The cavaliers wore more expensive, ornamental clothing and armour. They wore a calibre belt wit ha gun, a belt to support the gun, a stained yellow coat, a stand to support their musket when firing and they carried their bullets in a round bag. Charles was faced with many demands by parliament, overall 19 propositions, and had to make a compromise; as a result of this many changes were made. Here are some of the compromises and demands: Parliament demanded they have regular meetings, Charles agreed that parliament should meet every 3 years and cannot be ended without MP's permission. Parliament demanded that Charles's ministers should be punished if they have behaved badly, and Charles agreed that his minister whom behaved badly would be executed after being tried by MP's. Parliament demanded that Charles should take his advice from sensible ministers, and that some of them should be from parliament. Charles made no response or agreement to this issue. Parliament demanded tat the changes Charles and archbishop Laud made to the church must be reversed, Charles agreed that they would not be reversed, but archbishop laud would be jailed. Parliaments demanded that taxes should not be raised without their agreement; Charles agreed that ship money would be made illegal. Parliament demanded that Charles should end his special courts; Charles agreed tat they would be abolished. ...read more.


Parliament ruled during the 11 years England was reined without a monarchy. I do not think Charles was a good king. He was very greedy, and did not think about others of the consequences of his drastic actions. He was very selfish and his actions only benefited himself. I think the trial was well - deserved as he killed many people, and many people died and were injured all because of his foolish actions. He is a very bad role model for a king. All of his actions were harmful to others, and were extremely selfish. Charles did not deserve o be a King, as he had no respect for his country and caused many problems and death and sadness in his destructive behaviour. He treated others very unfairly too. He did not respect other people wishes, or believes, and wanted his own ways at al times. When he did not get what he wanted, the consequences were severe, and he was too demanding. He was a murderer, thief and committed many other crimes. Although I believe Charles was a very bad king, I think some of his mistakes were accidental and many aspects and changes have remained to this very day, and influenced politics and royalty. Parliament rules our country, and there is little conflict between royalty and parliament, today they work together to find solutions and compromises, and do not resort to violence or drastic measures. There is no or little divide or conflict between religions and is a stronger sense of equality. Our country is ruled much more sufficiently, we have freedom of speech and respect, and hopefully, will remain this way. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level British History: Monarchy & Politics section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level British History: Monarchy & Politics essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Did Oliver Cromwell achieve his objectives from 1642 to 1658?

    5 star(s)

    of Lords type of institution which had been abolished after the execution of Charles I. He also invited back all the royalist supporters that had been purged from parliament in 'Prides Purge'. On top of that he was extremely lenient towards royalists, with 'The Act of General Pardon and Oblivion' he let many royalists off reparations after the civil war.

  2. Does Alexander II deserve the title of 'Tsar liberator'?

    Hugh Seton-Watson sums up this period of Alexander?s reign well when he says, ?The reign of Alexander II which began with bright promise, and changed to dreary stagnation, ended in tragedy. The ?Tsar-Liberator? was a victim of the unsolved conflict between social reform and the dogma of political autocracy?.[8] This

  1. Why did King Charles I Resort to Personal Rule in 1629?

    People did refuse to pay, and so it did not manage to raise enough money. This incident is another example of Charles' lack of understanding of his subjects. He had expected the country to trust him implicitly, to believe that what he was doing was right.

  2. The roles and leadership of Charles Stuart and John Pym in the English Civil ...

    After reading Anderson's14 view, in which she said Pym persuaded parliament's Mps to establish compulsory weekly taxes in London, that were later extended to other areas. She finishes by saying he laid the basis for a reasonably effective financial structure.

  1. This essay examines the actions of Charles VII in relation to events pertaining to ...

    Joan of Arc. New York: Penguin Books Ltd., 2000. A very useful source in terms of factual data and the implications of various events. Military, political and psychological viewpoints are presented within this source that provided a deeper insight into Joan. Gordon examines significant deeper meanings; she is particularly insightful in determining the element of danger for Joan in

  2. Was Oliver Cromwell a hero or a villain?

    Cromwell's original aim of the civil war was to remove the king's advisors, so the murder of the King is a little confusing. This may have just been part of a plan to get Cromwell power of the country. Consequently, Cromwell maybe seen as a hero or a villain as the trial was fair and unfair in different senses.

  1. What was the most significant cause of civil strife in England from 1455-61?

    Despite this, the foundations of Richards's insubordination do lie with his background. After the usurpation of Richard II in 1399, royal blood was an incredibly useful commodity and Richard Duke of York certainly was a magnate of the blood royal.

  2. Charlemagne Essay.

    also show perseverance, which meant never giving up despite any difficulties that he found during his campaigns. This characteristic of Charles was particularly noticeable in the Saxons wars, where Einhard said that Charles had 'mettlesome spirit.' This is the virtue Charles showed in the Saxons Wars. 'No war...was more prolonged.'

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work