Black Bartholomew’s Day

Appleby, David J.

doi:10.7765/9781847794451

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moderate nonconformists were considerably more numerous and better connected than radicals, and the frequency with which Anglican preachers, Cavalier journalists and even government officials launched vitriolic attacks on Presbyterians suggests that many within the establishment perceived them to be the greater threat. 83 As has been noted above, the army housed a wide range of religious and political views, added to which Monck's remodelling of the officer corps had restored many Presbyterians to military commands. These, by and large, were the kind of socially conservative Puritans who had connived at the expulsion of radical clergy from the Church of England in 1660, but who could be expected to resentperhaps even resistthe ejection of moderate Presbyterian ministers and the imposition of a narrow Cavalier-Anglican liturgy.…”

Section: ***mentioning

confidence: 94%

Veteran Politics in Restoration England, 1660–1670

Appleby

2013

The Seventeenth Century

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 1660, whilst readily accepting the chance to reclaim the crown, Charles II and his supporters were aware of the risks. On 29 May, just hours before his triumphal procession into London, Charles received a discomforting reminder of the recent past when several regiments of the "Old Army" of the Commonwealth were drawn up for his inspection at Blackheath. This was the army which had engineered his father's execution, defeated Charles himself at Worcester, repressed his supporters in Britain and fought them in Flanders. Clarendon's published account gives the impression that 50,000 soldiers were present, whereas the actual figure was closer to three thousand. Nevertheless, the army as a whole probably did number around 50,000 men; a large proportion of whom were battlehardened troops. 1 The royal party left the heath in no doubt that the military capacity of the well-equipped, well-drilled Commonwealth regiments far outstripped their own. Other bodies of veterans merited equally sensitive handling: a petition presented to Parliament in 1659 on behalf of 6500 war pensioners had already indicated that huge numbers of maimed parliamentarian veterans and war widows would remain reliant on public charity after the Restoration. 2 The new regime had also to consider the attitudes of thousands of able-bodied veterans who had already returned to civilian life. There was a distinct chance that such men might foment disaffection among the wider population. Former soldiers were certainly suspected, for example, when newly erected royal arms began to be defaced in parish churches. 3 More worryingly, ex-parliamentarians were assumed (rightly, in some cases) to be stockpiling weapons and ammunition. Royalist veterans presented the Restoration authorities with further problems. Having been deprived of financial assistance during the Interregnum, thousands of impoverished and maimed royalist soldiers and widows expected to be rewarded for their loyalty. In placating any one body of veterans, therefore, the authorities risked arousing the resentment of others. Any misjudgement might reignite lingering antipathies and undermine the process of national reconciliation. Consequently, whilst the demobilisation of the army was vital for long-term political stability, it was but one element of a larger and more complex problem. It is often written that historians have devoted more attention to the experiences of parliamentarian soldiers during the civil wars and Interregnum than to their royalist counterparts. 4 The historiography of the Restoration is less straightforward. Considerable work has been done on radicals after 1660, most notably by Richard L. Greaves. 5 The deployment of military veterans overseas has attracted some attention, although relatively little has been published since the 1970s. 6 More surprisingly, the

show abstract

Section: ***mentioning

confidence: 94%