What Was The Main Cause Of The First English Civil War?

Authors Avatar
What Was The Main Cause Of The English Civil War? [1642-1646] The first English Civil War took place between parliamentarians and royalists over the course of four years, from 1642 to 1646. It consisted of much political conspiracy and armed contention from both sides who had encountered great difficulty in co-operating during the flawed reign of Charles I.       The war was a result of parliament’s general frustration at the monarch’s policies, and the influence of the conflicts in Ireland and Scotland. Parliament’s ultimate aim was not to dispose of Charles I from the throne, but to pressurize and obligate the King to abide by the policies in which they desire the country to be run. Supporters of Charles were to battle against parliament, and so began the events of the civil war.     This essay will consider the causes of the civil war through events preceding 1642 from a series of different aspects. Social, political, economic, religious and military accounts will be excogitated and I will venture to find a conclusion to what I believe was the most notable in motivating the war.     Charles I was a highly introverted character during his time as King of England and Scotland. He did not enjoy speaking or having any satisfactory form of communication to the public that he ruled over, and suffered from poor social skills. As a supporter of Arminianism, he abided by the divine right of kings, allowing him to remain silent in times of public commotion.  From 1629 to 1640, he governed under a personal rule (also known as the “Eleven Years Tyranny”) and was capable of operating without the need for a parliamentary system – to do this, he had to cut his expenditure drastically and sign peace treaties with France and Spain early in his rule to prevent further wars. This also brought in increased customs revenue as English trade and commerce had been revived at this time of peace. It proved a highly controversial manner to reign and was heavily criticized from all quarters.     Charles refused to compromise on his adherence towards Episcopacy and this culminated in the Root Branch Petition of 1640, of which consisted of 15,000 London-based signatures from those who were suffering at the time against the King’s policies. Many people were suspicious of this church-led government and preferred the idea of its abolishment. This represented people’s unease towards Charles’ approach, and highlighted his social and political naivety. Historian Christopher Hill believed that these events were part of a social movement that stemmed from a class war (“'The state power protecting an old order that was essentially feudal was violently overthrown, power passed into the hands of a new class, and so the freer development of capitalism was made possible. The civil war was a class war”) and that those under the rule at the time felt that “they needed a new voice”.     As previously implied, Charles’ personal rule cut off almost all political input from any area and this not only isolated many politicians but also this
Join now!
“creative reform” (as referred to by recent historians such as Kevin Sharpe) brought about many mistakes and dubious decision making. One of the most notable was being drawn into war in Scotland – Presbyterians had viciously reacted against the reformation of the church in the country and drew Charles into a war, therefore forcing him to recall parliament in April 1640 for the first time in over a decade to help fund the impending struggle. Although the House of Commons had allowed these imbursements, it was eventually demanded that the issue of Charles’ Personal Rule and its various violations of ...

This is a preview of the whole essay