http://mercuriuspoliticus.wordpress.com/2007/07/12/the-noble-revolt/ A blog (mostly) about early modern culture Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:53:56 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 http://mercuriuspoliticus.wordpress.com/2007/07/12/the-noble-revolt/#comment-144 God’s Fury, England’s Fire « Mercurius Politicus Fri, 28 Mar 2008 20:02:55 +0000 http://mercuriuspoliticus.wordpress.com/2007/07/12/the-noble-revolt/#comment-144 [...] slight letdown is that the book does not fully engage with the arguments of John Adamson’s The Noble Revolt, although this is not Braddick’s fault: The Noble Revolt emerged as God’s Fury was [...] [...] slight letdown is that the book does not fully engage with the arguments of John Adamson’s The Noble Revolt, although this is not Braddick’s fault: The Noble Revolt emerged as God’s Fury was [...]

]]> http://mercuriuspoliticus.wordpress.com/2007/07/12/the-noble-revolt/#comment-31 mrsceptic Sun, 04 Nov 2007 19:51:57 +0000 http://mercuriuspoliticus.wordpress.com/2007/07/12/the-noble-revolt/#comment-31 A truly wonderful blog. you may take a look at by blog . Also published my two pennies worth A truly wonderful blog. you may take a look at by blog . Also published my two pennies worth

]]> http://mercuriuspoliticus.wordpress.com/2007/07/12/the-noble-revolt/#comment-30 “A look close up permits us to grasp what eludes a comprehensive viewing” « Mercurius Politicus Sun, 04 Nov 2007 17:17:18 +0000 http://mercuriuspoliticus.wordpress.com/2007/07/12/the-noble-revolt/#comment-30 [...] 4th, 2007 by mercuriuspoliticus In a comment on one of my first posts, Gavin Robinson recommended John Walter’s microhistory of the Stour Valley Riots, Understanding popular [...] [...] 4th, 2007 by mercuriuspoliticus In a comment on one of my first posts, Gavin Robinson recommended John Walter’s microhistory of the Stour Valley Riots, Understanding popular [...]

]]> http://mercuriuspoliticus.wordpress.com/2007/07/12/the-noble-revolt/#comment-20 Investigations of a Dog » The Nobles Are Revolting Too! Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:04:31 +0000 http://mercuriuspoliticus.wordpress.com/2007/07/12/the-noble-revolt/#comment-20 [...] I’ve finally finished reading John Adamson’s The Noble Revolt (2007). Mercurius Politicus has already posted a review of the book, having read it twice. That’s quite an achievement as [...] [...] I’ve finally finished reading John Adamson’s The Noble Revolt (2007). Mercurius Politicus has already posted a review of the book, having read it twice. That’s quite an achievement as [...]

]]> http://mercuriuspoliticus.wordpress.com/2007/07/12/the-noble-revolt/#comment-3 mercuriuspoliticus Sat, 21 Jul 2007 08:33:19 +0000 http://mercuriuspoliticus.wordpress.com/2007/07/12/the-noble-revolt/#comment-3 That's a really interesting review of Walter's book. I will have to check it out. I agree that it's frustrating when the debate on origins of the war gets reduced to monocausal explanations. Hence the slight disingenuousness when Adamson argues that the Warwick-Bedford group were motivated by power and short term political expediency - despite also having argued that religion and politics can't be split apart during this period. Ultimately, does it mean anything to say the war was a "war of religion", or a "class war", or whatever else? The point you make about microhistories is probably right - but the challenge is to synthesise them into something greater. The question Adamson answers very well is "why in the short-term did those participating in the political sphere at Westminster take sides and end up fighting each other?" He does this very well and draws in the geopolitical context, the religious context, the personalities involved, etc. What there isn't scope to answer in a book like this is the longer-term origins of why that political atmosphere came to such a point in 1640-2, or what was happening below the level of the aristocracy and the Commons during this period and before. Sadly there is nothing available like Lawrence Stone's great, if flawed, synthesis of scholarship from the 1950s and 1960s. This was a really sophisticated attempt to combine a range of disciplines and a range of explanations. I'd love to see something similar written today. That’s a really interesting review of Walter’s book. I will have to check it out. I agree that it’s frustrating when the debate on origins of the war gets reduced to monocausal explanations. Hence the slight disingenuousness when Adamson argues that the Warwick-Bedford group were motivated by power and short term political expediency – despite also having argued that religion and politics can’t be split apart during this period. Ultimately, does it mean anything to say the war was a “war of religion”, or a “class war”, or whatever else? The point you make about microhistories is probably right – but the challenge is to synthesise them into something greater. The question Adamson answers very well is “why in the short-term did those participating in the political sphere at Westminster take sides and end up fighting each other?” He does this very well and draws in the geopolitical context, the religious context, the personalities involved, etc. What there isn’t scope to answer in a book like this is the longer-term origins of why that political atmosphere came to such a point in 1640-2, or what was happening below the level of the aristocracy and the Commons during this period and before. Sadly there is nothing available like Lawrence Stone’s great, if flawed, synthesis of scholarship from the 1950s and 1960s. This was a really sophisticated attempt to combine a range of disciplines and a range of explanations. I’d love to see something similar written today.

]]>