Of The English Revolution

What You Actually Need to Know Before Diving Into The English Revolution

Most people approach the period between 1640 and 1688 with a handful of names and a vague sense that things got messy. That approach gets you through a general history class and leaves you completely lost when someone asks about the Rump Parliament, the Instrument of Government, or why the Convention Parliament of 1660 matters at all. I spent three years reading primary sources on this era before I stopped contradicting myself on basic points, and even now I catch myself second-guessing dates when I read something new. The biggest problem you will run into is that virtually every introductory source collapses the entire century of conflict into a single narrative arc: king versus parliament, parliament wins, everything is fine. That is not how it worked. The English Revolution was a set of overlapping crises — constitutional, religious, financial, and military — that never resolved cleanly. The Civil Wars ended in 1646 and then immediately restarted. The Commonwealth lasted until 1660 and then was followed by a regime that spent the next two decades pretending it never happened. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 is usually presented as a neat conclusion, but it was really just the most recent bandage on a wound that never healed. I once tried to give a straightforward timeline to someone who had just finished a popular history book, and they came back to me furious because I told them the Interregnum was not a unified period. The book had presented it as one coherent government. It was not. You had the Rump, the Nominated Assembly, the Protectorate under Cromwell, the Barebone's Parliament, the Second Protectorate Parliament, and the resignation of Richard Cromwell — each one fundamentally different in structure and legitimacy. Treating them as one thing is like treating every American presidency from 1789 to 1860 as a single government.

Primary Sources Are Non-Negotiable

Here is the practical part. If you want to actually understand this period instead of just accumulating trivia, you need to read sources from the period itself. Secondary sources are useful for orientation, but they are all filtered through modern ideological assumptions about democracy, revolution, and constitutionalism that did not exist in the seventeenth century. The people living through this had their own frameworks, and those frameworks look nothing like ours. The National Archives at Kew has digitized a enormous amount of material. You can access State Papers Domestic from the period starting for free online. The Calendar of State Papers is an index, but it will tell you what exists and where it is. For parliamentary material, the Parliamentary History of England by Cobbett is still the go-to reference, even though it was compiled in the early nineteenth century. It is not perfect, but it is comprehensive and freely available through various university repositories. I ran into a specific issue when I was trying to trace the legislative output of the Long Parliament after it was purged in 1648. The standard statutes don't cover the Rump Parliament properly, and the acts passed during the Commonwealth are scattered across different recording systems. What I ended up doing was using the English Short Title Catalogue to track down printed broadsides and act books from the period, then cross-referencing those with the Journals of the House of Commons. It took me about six weeks to build a working list of Rump legislation that I could trust. There is no shortcut around that kind of work if you want accuracy.

The Religious Question Nobody Talks About Enough

You cannot separate the political events from the religious ones. The revolution was driven as much by religious anxiety as by constitutional grievance. The abolition of the episcopacy, the attack on the Book of Common Prayer, the explosion of sectarian groups — these were not side issues. They were central to why ordinary people cared about what was happening and why the restoration of 1660 felt like a relief to so many. A common pitfall is to read the religious conflicts through a modern secular lens and assume that people were using religion as a cover for political or economic motives. That is backwards. These people genuinely believed that the survival of their souls depended on the outcome. The Parliamentarians were not just fighting for property rights and representation. They believed the King was allied with the Antichrist. The Levellers and Diggers were not just proto-communists with Puritan vocabulary. They were genuinely trying to build a godly commonwealth. Dismissing the religious dimension is the fastest way to misunderstand everything.

Get the Full Details

The Oxford Handbook of the English Revolution | SoftArchive

The Military Dimension

The New Model Army is usually treated as a footnote or a background factor. It should not be. The army was the single most powerful institution in England from 1645 to 1659. It was professional, paid, disciplined, and politically aware. The marches on Parliament, the purge of the Long Parliament, the imposition of the Instrument of Government — all of it was backed by military force. Cromwell himself was a cavalry commander before he was a politician. The men who enforced the Protectorate were soldiers, not bureaucrats. If you read the accounts of the Putney Debates in 1647, you will see something that looks almost modern: soldiers and officers debating suffrage, land rights, and the limits of government. That is not a sideshow. That is the revolution speaking directly, and it is one of the few moments in early modern history where the rank and file had a voice in constitutional discussions. The fact that those debates were suppressed and the ringleaders punished shows exactly how fragile the whole experiment was.

The Financial Reality

Every revolution runs out of money. The English one was no exception. The Crown had been trying to find alternative revenue sources for decades before 1640, which is partly why Charles I resorted to ship money and other controversial measures. The Parliamentarians struggled to fund the war despite controlling the productive southeast. The Commonwealth governments never solved the underlying financial problem. They taxed heavily, debased the currency at times, and relied on confiscation of royal and ecclesiastical lands. None of it was sustainable. This is why the Restoration, for all its problems, was widely accepted. The alternative was either continued military rule or financial collapse. Most people, including many who had supported Parliament, preferred a compromised monarchy to another decade of uncertainty. That preference is often missed in sources that treat 1660 as a betrayal rather than a pragmatic choice.