The English Civil War and Puritanism

[@taylorw]

These lectures are an extraordinary tour de force. And make me profoundly appreciative to have been born under the US constitution. Even if we're a chaotic mess at the moment.

[@wingt4thewin625]

Ryan Reeves is the sophisticated John Green.

[@RyanReevesM]

Cleon Walden // Ha! I need to write a novel and make it a movie, then! :)

[@irishcoffeytwo]

Thank you for this wonderful, balanced, informative and well planned out and executed series of presentations.I've been riveted from the start, and, agree or disagree, will stay riveted till the end. What a positive contribution to human compassion and mutual understanding!

[@RyanReevesM]

irishcoffeytwo // Thanks, irish. Yes with this material I never expect everyone to agree--especially with lectures that are a survey of so much complex history! But I'm always happy when people find it balanced and helpful for the conversation in general. :)

[@richunixunix3313]

Dr Reeves, can you do a video/lectures solely on witches of the 15/17/18th century's Europe.

[@GreatKhanMatt]

Question. how did the son of hardline protestant King james turn out to be a catholic loving soft protestant?

[@DrummerKeithScott]

"The stool thrown around the world" that was hilarious.

[@deadsparrow28]

Excellent summary

[@Saghorse1978]

Will you do a video on Oliver Cromwell?

[@RyanReevesM]

In the works! Should be out soon.

[@erikriza7165]

Couldn't the Arminians just go to Armenia?

[@borderlands6606]

Puritanism is the beginning of a process which ends up in the New Atheism and metaphysical materialism.

[@mikhailv67tv]

How so?

[@bryanbridges2987]

mikhailv67 The world may never know....

[@erikjager4704]

Professor Reeves' s Evangelical bias is on full display. England became more Protestant during the English Civil War. However, it was a fad that passed away because Oliver Cromwell's policy. The English were not Puritans at heart. They did care for Cromwell's zealous Puritanism. They did not like that he closed down the theater, all the Sabbath laws, and a more extreme Protestant church. Also, Cromwell was a military dictator . Charles II was less concerned with religion and willing to accept Parliament's right to rule. Also, many considered Puritans to be a foreign church such from Scotland. Professor Reeves is a product of a New England Evangelicals who think that Puritans were their forerunners. He is biased as a Jesuit priest defending the Inquisition.

[@RyanReevesM]

Actually if you watch the other videos in the series that deal with the aftermath of the English Civil War I make some of the same arguments you deny me. The point you make about England not being Puritan is true. No historian would deny that. The point I'm making is that Puritanism held authority for a time and worked its way into Parliament. Also I'm not from New England and spend 0 minutes of my day defending Puritans. :)

[@erikriza7165]

King Charles cannot beat Richard Harris

[@VCYT]

1:23 - Donald trump seems to bypassed checks an balances.

[@polemeros]

How?

[@nepomucene4213]

You could add an American angle, as the English civil war greatly slowed migration to the colonies and also reversed it in some cases. See "The Barbarous Years" p. 470. Perhaps as much as 1/8th of the English settlers of America returned to England due to the Civil War, and Cromwell's more Puritan friendly rule. Still the population of the colonies grew by 50,000 from 1640 to 1660, almost tripling - partly because of babies being born.

[@elrjames7799]

Nice presentation, but allegations of "tyranny" are made without supporting evidence and assume the Monarch exercised his prerogative outside the law, which wasn't the case.

[@RyanReevesM]

+Elr James // No you're correct there overall. The shift is that a number of ideas were swirling around Parliament and elsewhere that began to speak of the limits of royal authority. Meanwhile the king carried on like all kings before him. It is one of the rare times where ideological changes clash to openly and immediately in history. And of course they hardly disguise the fact that they do not like Charles personally.

[@elrjames7799]

Ryan Reeves Oh yes: personal antipathy to Charles I and his family helps to understand why (in the absence of the acquired political skill of his eldest son) he proved incapable of managing an avoidance of bloody civil war.

[@RyanReevesM]

+Elr James // Completely agree. In a longer, live lecture I point out to students that someone born to the throne, raised to believe he was absolute sovereign, and without training in being winsome is largely to blame. It seems to be an axiom: monarchs who did not expect to be kings always tend to be better at winning loyalty. Those born to it, raised to it, etc. have a habit of mistaking their authority with people doing everything they say.

[@elrjames7799]

Ryan Reeves Interesting pattern to draw attention to, and not far wrong :-)

[@probro9898]

21:21 Her name was Jenny (not Jane) Geddes

[@stevenwhitener5776]

shoter or shorter catechism?

[@RyanReevesM]

Let's go with shoter. Will make it more interesting in the modern context, eh? :))