Submitted by AutoModerator t3_yt6et7 in history
cfcgazz t1_iw6aysi wrote
Why is the English (or British) civil war rarely talked about outside of history circles? It is one of the most important parts of history but most are barely aware of it, if it all. In contrast, the Tudor era for example is in the global conscience a lot more but no more important IMO
en43rs t1_iw6lftm wrote
The English civil war is bad optics for a monarchy. The people killed the king, they would much prefer to talk about the birth of the English state (the Tudors) or the birth of modern British politics (the Glorious Revolution). When institutions want to hide under the rug a whole era it's difficult to get people excited about this. And at this point it's so far away that you would need to change the whole popular view of English history to put it at the forefront... and let's be honest not many people care about 17th century history.
cfcgazz t1_iw6m3hx wrote
But people to care about 16th century, they even care about 1066, so it’s not as simple as that. Fair points though. Personally think it it’s a shame as it’s the most important part of English history IMO
en43rs t1_iw6qzhi wrote
Here’s the thing. People do not really care about the 16th century. They just are familiar and enjoy the Elizabethan esthetic and Shakespeare.
And do people really care about 1066? Or has school drilled into them the idea that it’s an Important Date that Should Be Remembered? Do they know actually what William or Henry Tudor did or do they just know the names because “it’s important”.
[deleted] t1_iw6r4ey wrote
[deleted]
elmonoenano t1_iw9wvn1 wrote
There's a book that came out last year called Devil Land. The author has some other books on Charles II and the English civil too. This book made a few best of lists I saw and I kind of filed it away in my "Maybe check it out if you see it on the remainder table or at the library" list. But it might be something you'd find interesting.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments