And now in our time Europe has invited its own demise and England has been conquered by neglect. Vlad Tepes, El Cid and Roland must be rolling over in their graves.
You've left out huge chunks of history to force your narrative down this route. It's laughable. The Bishop's War had vanished from history; the Wars of the Three Kingdoms have also gone missing, etc.
Simon I am sure you know too that the Corsairs also sailed out of Morocco (which was never part of the Ottoman Empire). I remember reading an excellent book on this, many years ago now, called White Gold by Giles Milton.
A masterful summation indicated in passing by my old desert rat history teacher in the 1970s...
He was one of those that posed his lessons as questions; this was one of them, it went something like, "did muslim expansion cause the English civil war?"...
Your efforts are more comprehensive than a full curriculum might've allowed, of course...
Yes, it is the kind of thing that a history teacher 50 years ago might well have suggested! These days, I don't think that so much time is spent on English history of that kind though. I'm glad that you liked it!
So little time is spent on it that the history of the Barbary Pirates appears in a unit of British History at A-Level nowadays. However, this covers a later period of history, your claim that such events are not taught is bunkum:
I was referring to the teaching of the events leading up to, and causes of, the English Civil War. The link you give relates to the Royal Navy's suppression of the slave trade, some 200 years later. I think it possible that one of us might be a little confused, or perhaps unable to follow a coherent train of thought.
Oh, I'm perfectly able to follow a train of thought, Webb and the issue around Charles and ship money are still taught as well. You've presented a very misleading picture of that issue, and several people have called you on that on History Debunked. You are interested in demonising Muslims, that's all.
You are confused about more than one thing here. In the first place, I did not claim that the history of the English Civil War and its causes was not taught at all. I said rather that, 'I don't think that so much time is spent on English history of that kind though'. This is one point which you do not seem to have grasped. Secondly, there is a good deal of difference between A Level curricula, which pupils choose to take and which do indeed have specific topics included within them, and the National Curriculum followed by all pupils at Maintained Schools in this country.
You see the National Curriculum is exceedingly vague, requiring that children at schools are taught to, 'know and understand the history of these islands as a coherent, chronological narrative, from the earliest times to the present day'. To this end, many topics are given as examples of what might be taught, but these suggestions are non-statutory. Among them are of course the English Civil War. How many schools actually cover this in detail is impossible to establish, other than anecdotally. And as I am sure you know, the plural of anecdote is not data!
It's taught at the National Curriculum level as well. The difference being, of course, that they tend to be less in-depth in how they approach it. Indeed, anecdotes are not reliable data, yet you rely upon them quite a bit to prop up your constructions when presenting videos. We often meet the supposed black men at train stations who big you up. Or you inform us of strange events when visiting places in the Holy Land.
I am surprised you haven't done a video on Kneecap yet given the controversy around them.
Here's the details for the current A-Level unit on the English Civil War: 2E The English Revolution, 1625–1660
This option provides for the study in depth of the challenges faced by those in authority in the years before, during and after the English Civil War. It explores concepts such as Divine Right; arbitrary government, Arminianism, and political and religious radicalism. It also encourages an in-depth understanding of how government works, arbitrary government and consensus, authority and opposition and issues of settlement.
Part one: the origins of the English Civil War, 1625–1642
The emergence of conflict and the end of consensus, 1625–1629
The legacy of James I: religious issues and divisions; relations between Crown and Parliament; relations with foreign powers
Monarchy and Divine Right: the character and aims of Charles I; the Queen and the court; the King's advisers; ideas of royal authority
Challenges to the arbitrary government of Charles I: reactions against financial policies; conflict over Church; reactions against foreign policy and the role of Buckingham
Parliamentary radicalism; personalities and policies of parliamentary opposition to the King; the Petition of Right; the dissolution of Parliament and the King’s commitment to Personal Rule
An experiment in Absolutism, 1629–1640
Charles I’s Personal Rule: his chief ministers; methods of government; financial policies and the reaction against them
Religious issues: Laud and Arminianism in England and Scotland; the growth of opposition from Puritans
Political issues: the role of Wentworth; policies in Ireland and England; the reactions against the Crown; demands for the recall of Parliament
Radicalism, dissent and the approach of war: the spread of religious radicalism; the Scottish Covenant and the Bishops' War; the Pacification of Berwick; the second Bishops' war
The crisis of Parliament and the outbreak of the First Civil War, 1640–1642
The Political Nation 1640: the recall of Parliament; the strengths and weaknesses of Charles I; the strengths and divisions of parliamentary opposition
Pym and the development of parliamentary radicalism: Pym’s personality and aims; the Grand Remonstrance; the London mob; popular radicalism
Conflicts between Crown and Parliament: failure of negotiations between the King and the Long Parliament; the execution of Strafford and its political consequences
The slide into war: the impact of events in Ireland; the failed arrest of the Five Members; local grievances; attempts to impose royal authority and the development of a Royalist Party; military preparations for war
Part two: Radicalism, Republic and Restoration, 1642–1660 (A-level only)
War and radicalism, 1642–1646 (A-level only)
The First Civil War: the strengths and weaknesses of the political and military leadership of the Royalist cause
The First Civil War: the strengths and weaknesses of the political and military leadership of the Parliamentary forces; emergence of the New Model Army; the Solemn League and Covenant; Self Denying Ordinance
The intensification of radicalism: popular radicalism in London; religious radicalism in the New Model Army; pamphlets and propaganda
The end of the First Civil War: divisions amongst the Parliamentary leaders; attempts at settlement; the capture of Charles I
The disintegration of the Political Nation, 1646–1649 (A-level only)
Political and religious radicalism: the politicisation of the New Model Army; Lilburne and the Levellers; Fifth Monarchists; Ranters and other populist groups
Political and religious divisions: the attitude and actions of Charles I; divisions within the opposition to the King; the failure of attempts to reach a political settlement
The Second Civil War and the reasons for its outcome
The problem of Charles I: divisions within the army and Parliament; the trial and execution of the King
Experiments in government and society, 1648–1660 (A-level only)
The Third Civil War: the attempted Royalist revival; the defeat and exile of Prince Charles
Political radicalism: failure of the Levellers and Diggers and the ‘Godly Society’; Quakers, Baptists and other radical sects; the Rump Parliament as an experiment in radical republicanism; the Parliament of the Saints
Oliver Cromwell and the Protectorate: Cromwell’s personality and approach to government and his refusal of the Crown; the limits of religious toleration; the Major Generals; the problem of the succession to Cromwell
The monarchy restored: political vacuum after the death of Cromwell; negotiations for the return of the monarchy under Charles II; the legacy of the English Revolution by 1660
It's no use cutting and pasting huge chunks of stuff like this because you do not understand how the A Level process works. There is no single curriculum. To begin with, there are various boards, such Edexcel and AQA, and each board offers schools the option of teaching from a range of dozens of topics. For instance the AQA A Level in history can cover Tsarist Russia, the French Revolution and or another 21 different periods. For the sake of convenience, most Maintained Schools in a local authority area will all choose the same topic and I can assure you that it is very seldom 17th century England. They tend rather to select something upon which GCSE pupils can build from what they have previously been studying; preferably something in the 20th century, such as suffragettes or the Cold War. There is little point in debating this further with you, for you evidently do not understand how the British education system actually works.
I would think the fact I have qualifications from both the exam boards you mention (and others) might suggest I might have a smidgen of knowledge about how the process works. Yes, 17th-century England is a field not all A-Level students will choose. However, at GCSE, they will cover the basics of the English Civil War in many cases. They would certainly fail an exam if studying the English Civil War if they used your essay as a resource.
One of the key points of cutting and pasting it is to illustrate the paucity of your narrative. Which, of course, is designed for nothing more than rage-baiting your regulars as HD.
Could you be a little more explicit? By which I mean, could you tell us which of the events with which I deal in this essay do you claim did not occur?
I am referencing the notion of a teacher in the 1970s standing in front of a classroom and putting forward the proposition that, "did muslim expansion cause the English Civil War?" This seems to be a most unlikely scenario.
A very enjoyable piece and a reminder that Britain was also a victim of the slave trade. However, I think the last line might be pushing it a bit! Were the Barbary pirates really trying to push the boundaries of Islam? Or just opportunists who happened to be Muslim?
Very true that Charles I fell out with Parliament and the people over taxation, but there were also huge tensions between Catholics and Protestants who did not want a return to religious persecution of a close relationship with the Spanish invader.
Just to mention for completeness that by the time of the siege ov Vienna, Spain had be reconquered (by Christians) for two hundred years.
A friends father was career RN from late 60s to early 90s. Vessels he'd been on posted to Gulf Red sea regularly stopped ships carrying enslaved people destined for middle east.
Looking at current politics in Britain, Canada, and America, I often wonder if a monarchy wouldn't be better. Someone ruling instead of rule by committee.
If we could only find a king that cared for his people more than his cronies. I'd be happy.
I use it as a pseudonym, and you've been digging into my family history if you know it's my mother's maiden name. I can hardly use that which is part of my own bloodline as a 'false identity. Did you read The Guardian at all recently?
It is of course perfectly possible to use a name from one's bloodline to construct a false identity! If I began posting comments on YouTube under the name of Von Gum or Stannard, these would amount to false identities, regardless of the fact that they are to be found among my recent ancestors. It raises the question of why you feel the need to use so many false names and cannot simply do as I do and post under your own name.
And you write all your books under the name Simon Webb I presume? HD is overflowing with bots, and that's partly why its growth has been throttled. It's a midden.
Of course westerns are published under pseudonyms! Readers are well aware of this and there is no intention to deceive. I am aware that many of those commenting on my YouTube channel also use false names, but there is little to be done about this. I have never posted under any name but my own and cannot see what reason I would have to do so. Even here on Substack though, you are still not using your real name.
Thank you Simon, you have a God given gift for making history interesting. If only my A level history teacher in the 1960s had been so blessed I may not have failed the exam so dismally.
And now in our time Europe has invited its own demise and England has been conquered by neglect. Vlad Tepes, El Cid and Roland must be rolling over in their graves.
Yes, if only some new warriors would emerge in Europe and lead the fightback.
that is really fascinating. I never knew any of that history!
A lot of it isn't taught any more in schools!
We have the same problem in the States.
According to the current woke curriculum, American history started with Martin Luther King, Jr. Everything before that was racist!
The problem being of course that those who forget their history are often fated to repeat it...
You've left out huge chunks of history to force your narrative down this route. It's laughable. The Bishop's War had vanished from history; the Wars of the Three Kingdoms have also gone missing, etc.
Simon I am sure you know too that the Corsairs also sailed out of Morocco (which was never part of the Ottoman Empire). I remember reading an excellent book on this, many years ago now, called White Gold by Giles Milton.
Yes, indeed. They were a purely mercenary enterprise with no further intention than to make money!
A masterful summation indicated in passing by my old desert rat history teacher in the 1970s...
He was one of those that posed his lessons as questions; this was one of them, it went something like, "did muslim expansion cause the English civil war?"...
Your efforts are more comprehensive than a full curriculum might've allowed, of course...
Yes, it is the kind of thing that a history teacher 50 years ago might well have suggested! These days, I don't think that so much time is spent on English history of that kind though. I'm glad that you liked it!
So little time is spent on it that the history of the Barbary Pirates appears in a unit of British History at A-Level nowadays. However, this covers a later period of history, your claim that such events are not taught is bunkum:
https://www.tes.com/teaching-resource/-full-lesson-royal-navy-and-the-suppression-of-piracy-edexcel-a-level-history-11531450
I was referring to the teaching of the events leading up to, and causes of, the English Civil War. The link you give relates to the Royal Navy's suppression of the slave trade, some 200 years later. I think it possible that one of us might be a little confused, or perhaps unable to follow a coherent train of thought.
Oh, I'm perfectly able to follow a train of thought, Webb and the issue around Charles and ship money are still taught as well. You've presented a very misleading picture of that issue, and several people have called you on that on History Debunked. You are interested in demonising Muslims, that's all.
You are confused about more than one thing here. In the first place, I did not claim that the history of the English Civil War and its causes was not taught at all. I said rather that, 'I don't think that so much time is spent on English history of that kind though'. This is one point which you do not seem to have grasped. Secondly, there is a good deal of difference between A Level curricula, which pupils choose to take and which do indeed have specific topics included within them, and the National Curriculum followed by all pupils at Maintained Schools in this country.
You see the National Curriculum is exceedingly vague, requiring that children at schools are taught to, 'know and understand the history of these islands as a coherent, chronological narrative, from the earliest times to the present day'. To this end, many topics are given as examples of what might be taught, but these suggestions are non-statutory. Among them are of course the English Civil War. How many schools actually cover this in detail is impossible to establish, other than anecdotally. And as I am sure you know, the plural of anecdote is not data!
It's taught at the National Curriculum level as well. The difference being, of course, that they tend to be less in-depth in how they approach it. Indeed, anecdotes are not reliable data, yet you rely upon them quite a bit to prop up your constructions when presenting videos. We often meet the supposed black men at train stations who big you up. Or you inform us of strange events when visiting places in the Holy Land.
I am surprised you haven't done a video on Kneecap yet given the controversy around them.
Here's the details for the current A-Level unit on the English Civil War: 2E The English Revolution, 1625–1660
This option provides for the study in depth of the challenges faced by those in authority in the years before, during and after the English Civil War. It explores concepts such as Divine Right; arbitrary government, Arminianism, and political and religious radicalism. It also encourages an in-depth understanding of how government works, arbitrary government and consensus, authority and opposition and issues of settlement.
Part one: the origins of the English Civil War, 1625–1642
The emergence of conflict and the end of consensus, 1625–1629
The legacy of James I: religious issues and divisions; relations between Crown and Parliament; relations with foreign powers
Monarchy and Divine Right: the character and aims of Charles I; the Queen and the court; the King's advisers; ideas of royal authority
Challenges to the arbitrary government of Charles I: reactions against financial policies; conflict over Church; reactions against foreign policy and the role of Buckingham
Parliamentary radicalism; personalities and policies of parliamentary opposition to the King; the Petition of Right; the dissolution of Parliament and the King’s commitment to Personal Rule
An experiment in Absolutism, 1629–1640
Charles I’s Personal Rule: his chief ministers; methods of government; financial policies and the reaction against them
Religious issues: Laud and Arminianism in England and Scotland; the growth of opposition from Puritans
Political issues: the role of Wentworth; policies in Ireland and England; the reactions against the Crown; demands for the recall of Parliament
Radicalism, dissent and the approach of war: the spread of religious radicalism; the Scottish Covenant and the Bishops' War; the Pacification of Berwick; the second Bishops' war
The crisis of Parliament and the outbreak of the First Civil War, 1640–1642
The Political Nation 1640: the recall of Parliament; the strengths and weaknesses of Charles I; the strengths and divisions of parliamentary opposition
Pym and the development of parliamentary radicalism: Pym’s personality and aims; the Grand Remonstrance; the London mob; popular radicalism
Conflicts between Crown and Parliament: failure of negotiations between the King and the Long Parliament; the execution of Strafford and its political consequences
The slide into war: the impact of events in Ireland; the failed arrest of the Five Members; local grievances; attempts to impose royal authority and the development of a Royalist Party; military preparations for war
Part two: Radicalism, Republic and Restoration, 1642–1660 (A-level only)
War and radicalism, 1642–1646 (A-level only)
The First Civil War: the strengths and weaknesses of the political and military leadership of the Royalist cause
The First Civil War: the strengths and weaknesses of the political and military leadership of the Parliamentary forces; emergence of the New Model Army; the Solemn League and Covenant; Self Denying Ordinance
The intensification of radicalism: popular radicalism in London; religious radicalism in the New Model Army; pamphlets and propaganda
The end of the First Civil War: divisions amongst the Parliamentary leaders; attempts at settlement; the capture of Charles I
The disintegration of the Political Nation, 1646–1649 (A-level only)
Political and religious radicalism: the politicisation of the New Model Army; Lilburne and the Levellers; Fifth Monarchists; Ranters and other populist groups
Political and religious divisions: the attitude and actions of Charles I; divisions within the opposition to the King; the failure of attempts to reach a political settlement
The Second Civil War and the reasons for its outcome
The problem of Charles I: divisions within the army and Parliament; the trial and execution of the King
Experiments in government and society, 1648–1660 (A-level only)
The Third Civil War: the attempted Royalist revival; the defeat and exile of Prince Charles
Political radicalism: failure of the Levellers and Diggers and the ‘Godly Society’; Quakers, Baptists and other radical sects; the Rump Parliament as an experiment in radical republicanism; the Parliament of the Saints
Oliver Cromwell and the Protectorate: Cromwell’s personality and approach to government and his refusal of the Crown; the limits of religious toleration; the Major Generals; the problem of the succession to Cromwell
The monarchy restored: political vacuum after the death of Cromwell; negotiations for the return of the monarchy under Charles II; the legacy of the English Revolution by 1660
It's no use cutting and pasting huge chunks of stuff like this because you do not understand how the A Level process works. There is no single curriculum. To begin with, there are various boards, such Edexcel and AQA, and each board offers schools the option of teaching from a range of dozens of topics. For instance the AQA A Level in history can cover Tsarist Russia, the French Revolution and or another 21 different periods. For the sake of convenience, most Maintained Schools in a local authority area will all choose the same topic and I can assure you that it is very seldom 17th century England. They tend rather to select something upon which GCSE pupils can build from what they have previously been studying; preferably something in the 20th century, such as suffragettes or the Cold War. There is little point in debating this further with you, for you evidently do not understand how the British education system actually works.
I would think the fact I have qualifications from both the exam boards you mention (and others) might suggest I might have a smidgen of knowledge about how the process works. Yes, 17th-century England is a field not all A-Level students will choose. However, at GCSE, they will cover the basics of the English Civil War in many cases. They would certainly fail an exam if studying the English Civil War if they used your essay as a resource.
One of the key points of cutting and pasting it is to illustrate the paucity of your narrative. Which, of course, is designed for nothing more than rage-baiting your regulars as HD.
His efforts consist of a shoddily written essay, which would be flung back in the face of any undergraduate.
This never happened.
Could you be a little more explicit? By which I mean, could you tell us which of the events with which I deal in this essay do you claim did not occur?
I am referencing the notion of a teacher in the 1970s standing in front of a classroom and putting forward the proposition that, "did muslim expansion cause the English Civil War?" This seems to be a most unlikely scenario.
Excellent. As usual.
Thank you!
Gosh, thank you - there is a lot here which I did not know.
I'm glad that you found it interesting.
A very enjoyable piece and a reminder that Britain was also a victim of the slave trade. However, I think the last line might be pushing it a bit! Were the Barbary pirates really trying to push the boundaries of Islam? Or just opportunists who happened to be Muslim?
Very true that Charles I fell out with Parliament and the people over taxation, but there were also huge tensions between Catholics and Protestants who did not want a return to religious persecution of a close relationship with the Spanish invader.
Just to mention for completeness that by the time of the siege ov Vienna, Spain had be reconquered (by Christians) for two hundred years.
Keep up the good work.
I am 71 and knew nothing of this.
A very informative read Simon.
I'm glad that you found it so. Thanks for taking the time to read it.
Fingers crossed for another domestic uprising to quell Muslim invasion!
We can but hope...
A friends father was career RN from late 60s to early 90s. Vessels he'd been on posted to Gulf Red sea regularly stopped ships carrying enslaved people destined for middle east.
Yes, the slave trade then was still going strong.
Looking at current politics in Britain, Canada, and America, I often wonder if a monarchy wouldn't be better. Someone ruling instead of rule by committee.
If we could only find a king that cared for his people more than his cronies. I'd be happy.
It's certainly an interesting idea!
Interesting
I never did like the cut of their jibs.
That made me laugh out loud!
We have a weak/woke King who will not speak out against Muslim rape clans in his kingdom. Disgusting.
Howdy pardner. Mister Webb likes them Westerns as well.
Ah. the man who uses his dead mother's maiden name as a false identity and then complains that his privacy is being invaded!
I use it as a pseudonym, and you've been digging into my family history if you know it's my mother's maiden name. I can hardly use that which is part of my own bloodline as a 'false identity. Did you read The Guardian at all recently?
It is of course perfectly possible to use a name from one's bloodline to construct a false identity! If I began posting comments on YouTube under the name of Von Gum or Stannard, these would amount to false identities, regardless of the fact that they are to be found among my recent ancestors. It raises the question of why you feel the need to use so many false names and cannot simply do as I do and post under your own name.
And you write all your books under the name Simon Webb I presume? HD is overflowing with bots, and that's partly why its growth has been throttled. It's a midden.
Of course westerns are published under pseudonyms! Readers are well aware of this and there is no intention to deceive. I am aware that many of those commenting on my YouTube channel also use false names, but there is little to be done about this. I have never posted under any name but my own and cannot see what reason I would have to do so. Even here on Substack though, you are still not using your real name.
Brilliant.
Thank you.
Thank you Simon, you have a God given gift for making history interesting. If only my A level history teacher in the 1960s had been so blessed I may not have failed the exam so dismally.
It is kind of you to say so. Thank you.