"Civil War vs Revolution" Topic

Whilst it can rarely be that the latter cannot be without the former,why is it that the English Civil Wars are not remembered as the English revolution? I certainly feel it fits the description.

Is it because the process the final removal of absolutism wasn't thought secured until the Glorious Revolution of 1688?

Why do we refer to the parliamentary wars as 'the' civil war in a national history cluttered with many others which might fit the bill? The Barons Wars might just as easily suit that tag.

I ask because I've been listening to a lot of lectures on the French Revolution and I suspect a significant reason for the British people aligning against that revolution was that they were already evolving in a similar direction brought on by the events of the seventeenth century.

By the way, the wars themselves I recognize as being about much more than ideology.

Thoughts?

Maybe times have changed, but a few decades ago the term 'The English Revolution' was very common in discussing the ECW.

Christopher Hill's book of that name, dating from 1940, remains a classic.

why is it that the English Civil Wars are not remembered as the English revolution?

Perhaps to avoid confusion with the Glorious Revolution of 1688?

You could equally argue that the ECW should really be referred to as the British Civil Wars – since they involved both the Scots and fighting in Ireland.

Maybe times have changed, but a few decades ago the term 'The English Revolution' was very common in discussing the ECW.

Seems it was only in Marxist literature (including Hill's book) that it was referred to thus.

One of the things that could move people to call the conflict in the mid 17th century a "Civil War" vs. things like the Baron's War is that the earlier wars involved pre-national armies fighting against each other.

With the rise of the nation-state in the 16th and 17th century things could become truly civil wars.

As Howard pointed out the English Revolution is a term used to discuss the Civil War.

However it is also a term used to describe the long process of revolution that took place from 1638-1690 that was, more or less, completed with the Dutch Invasion commonly referred to as the Glorious Revolution.

I prefer the term 'Civil War' myself to separate it from the revolution that is better, I think, to cover the whole 50 year process that contains the three Civil Wars.

The Barons Wars might just as easily suit that tag.

So could the Wars of the Roses …

Isn't pretty much any revolution followed by an extensive civil war always referred to as a civil war?

I'm thinking Spanish, Mexican, US, Chinese etc. I'm struggling to think of anything called a "revolution" which had a following civil war of any length or magnitude.

Even when people refer to the US Civil War as the War of Secession, it's the war that gets the billing, not the Secession.

The best I can do is that the Russian Revolution also had a following Civil War. But the specifically Bolshevik "revolution" is separate from "The Russian Revolution" and always included as part of the Civil War.

The American War of Independence is often referred to as the American Revolution, but I think most people consider that not to be a civil war (even though it sort of was).

So I think that English speaking historians are pretty consistent that if there is a following Civil War we generally wrap the whole thing up in that tag.

But so could the 100 Years War. The only reason why we think of the Baron's War and the Wars of the Roses as different is because England subsequently became a political entity. If things had gone differently during the 100 Years War and a good chunk, or all, of France had ended up in the English sphere permanently we might think of that as a civil war.

I think there are some differences, but really you have people with land holdings fighting to get control for the lord they think has their best interests at heart.

They are different from civil wars in that there was little in the way of ideological concerns in them and that they occurred in pre-nation-state societies where it would be difficult to exactly define what "country" they were fighting over.

"I'm thinking Spanish, Mexican, US, Chinese etc. I'm struggling to think of anything called a "revolution" which had a following civil war of any length or magnitude."

The Tai Ping Rebellion is usually referred to as that, although you would be hard pressed to say that it wasn't a civil war that lasted for more than a decade.

And like you say, the American Revolution very much was a civil war, they just weren't fighting for control of the entire polity, just a part of it.

The ECW was a civil war in the truest sense.

The American Revolution was the colonies that rebelled against the homeland. They were not full fledged citizens really and were treated as such.

The English Civil War by contrast was citizen vs citizen just like the ACW. No colonists. Simply brother against brother.

The Glorious Revolution was so named almost immediately after it happened. The ECW was called 'the Rebellion and Civil War' soon after it happened.

Later historians have given each of these names which they think fit the conflict more accurately but the familiar names have stuck, though with 'Rebellion and…' gradually falling out of favour.

There are instances of the ECW being dubbed a revolution (with a small r) even before Marx but post the French Revolution.

The UK parliament website link has a discussion on the nature of the wars, plumping largely for placing them as part of the wars of religion as happening elsewhere in Europe around the same time.

Isn't pretty much any revolution followed by an extensive civil war always referred to as a civil war?

Except that in the case of the English Civil Wars, the "revolution" came after the wars …

The ECW was called 'the Rebellion and Civil War' soon after it happened.

Interestingly enough though, "rebellion" is a fairly accurate term at least for the 1642 – 1645 conflict, in so far as it was armed rebellion against the authority of the king. We've had a few of those in English history – the Monmouth Rebellion, the '15 and the '45, Kett's Rebellion, the Prayer Book Rebellion, Jack Cade's rebellion …

Perhaps outcome is to be considered. Did the war result in a permanent change in the governmental structure ( as the AWI and the Russian Revolution), or was either no significant or at least only temporary change the result? The monarchy ceased to have authority in America, hence the AWI was a "revolution," whereas no change of governmental system or authority occurred as part of the ACW, so the latter, while a rebellion, was not a revolution. Of the ECW I am regretfully less informed, but I believe I am correct in assessing that the Parliamentary victory resulted in only a relatively temporary change of power (one despot for another with a different title), with the monarchy being eventually fully restored. So, perhaps an interruption, as it were, rather than a complete change? And thus not, in the long run, a "revolution" in English eyes?
Though as others have observed, perhaps clarity of historical discussion is really the only reason.

How about – a revolution is when the politically powerless attempts to overthrow those in power and replace them, while a civil war is between two power blocks, each with a claim to political power, trying to weaken or eliminate the other?

The Farropilhan Revolution would fall under a revolution by Dan's standard, but not by Parzival. The Gauchos managed to rebell and conquer the Southern Brasilian state and pretty much hold it for close to 8 years, but then beaten by the main Brasilian government.

One kicker is that the Brasilian government gave in to most of the demands the originated the rebellion in the 1st place, and the other 2 main objections that were not given, were accepted within the next 35 years anyway. But the Revolution was sort of a civil war in the the Gauchos fought each other. Manuel Ribero first fought on the side of the rebels, then switched to the empire when his brother was appointed governor. When his brother was sacked he switched back to the rebels and finally ended up on the side of the government to end the war.

I think Dan may have a good concept, though I think we have to admit that the real determining factor may simply be "what catches on" rather than any logical rule. Though I'd be interested if there is any consensus among historians for making distinctions between revolutions, rebellions, and civil wars, or if these terms are more or less synonyms even to "experts."
As a writer, I do note that there may be a slight shift in how readers might respond to the terms, with "revolution" potentially being positive, "rebellion" less so (though context matters, and there's the "underdog" appeal in the term). "Civil war," however, seems to have a more negative connotation, generally treated as a time of chaos and calamity. For example, if a news report warns of a potential civil war, the implication is such an event would be "bad." If the event is described as a "revolution," or "rebellion," it might be implied to be "good'," though admittedly not always.

Mexico's early 20th century ordeal of at least ten years of internal conflict/civil war is academically and popularly known as The Mexican Revolution.

Even though the Parliamentary victory in the ECW may have seen a temporary replacement government and degeneration back to dictatorship (like in France and Russia afterwards) it nevertheless seems to have imposed constitutional monarchy and the permanency of parliament.

Without regicide, what would Charles II and James II have been like? Without a parliamentary faction, who could have enabled William to go to England and enter into contractual arrangements with that parliament?

It's a pointless distinction. Call it what you want, and yes, twenty years ago they were tarting up the English thing as a Revolution. The best difference might be to say that a revolution would be transformative of the society in which it occurred, but the American "Civil War" certainly changed American Society profoundly. So did World War Two transform America even though we were not beaten and we won.

You also do not need to win a revolution to have success. The German Peasants War was crushed ruthlessly and brutally. But some parts of Swabia and Central Germany actually saw an improvement of the peasants life and some of their demands were met. Particularly too the horrors of that revolution affected many nobles that something had to be done to remove the cause of grievances and that they could no longer square their Christianity with how they were treated.