Diane Purkiss English Civil War: A People's History

It's a good book. :D

Purkiss' almost apologetically introduces herself as a non-native and ignorant of the civil war. She even explains that this lack of knowledge, and the desire to make up for it, has spurred on to learn as much as she can. Well, she certainly did that. She even asks the reader, politely, to accept the book, to indulge Purkiss' efforts to bring the facts to life. She does this very well.

The tales of Lucy Hay, Brilliana Harvey and others [gender is all but irrelevant, I hasten to add] is extremely worthwhile, a very strong use of primary evidence to create the zeitgeist which, lets face it, is so far from today's world as to be a fictional world. Charles himself is well documented, perhaps less so Cromwell, but then the point of the book was that these are the two known (chief) protagonists, according to popular belief. But Purkiss puts forward that the genaral populace, as well as those in society, have their right to be heard, and are very much heard in this volume, as it is segmented by personality or persons, rather than date or event or battle.

Of course Naseby, Newbury and Lostwithiel are all documented, but in terms of who it affected, who was there, what they believed, rather than any rather evasive and simplistic winners/losers.

As something of a civil war virgin myself, I found the entire thing a bit of a struggle to get my very simple view of the world to cope with the multitudinous interlocking causes and conditions. It was worth the effort... Perhaps most importantly, for me anyway, was the profound affect the Reformation had had on the country only really came home to roost in the 1640's, Henry, Mary and James notwithstanding. Purkiss' view makes this point probably clearer than any other.

The rest of the book actually leaves you wanting to know more, and in fact a general understanding of the preceding decades, starting perhaps 100 years before; including the religious upheaval, political struggles, and pan European conflicts; I'd recommend this before jumping in feet-first.

I did enjoy the Q&A at the back, I enjoyed Purkiss' style of prose. I believe she's an excellent history writer, the right amount of empathy, as well as a sharp view on the political side and sufficient detail, based on peerless levels of research.

I'd perhaps volunteer the suggest that we could find a more succinct way of describing the amount of primary sources; or perhaps a more comprehensive cull of the possible entries. Its doubtless a strong reference book, each of the sources are valid in their own right; but even I spotted several areas of duplication and there has to be an easier means to make a point than to re-state facts again and again.

Additionally, given the effort with maps, dates, photos and other primary sources, a timeline, a list of "cast", a summary of the key moments would not go amiss. If only to make the whole clear, before you delve into the parts.

That said, when there's that much material, most of it relevant, most of it poignant, it would make the editorial task harder - arguably - than the original scripting effort; what not to put in versus what to include. To a great extent Purkiss achieves this with skill, especially in light of her attempt to write the book from the perspective of the people involved.

Finally, I applaud the Q&A, the future reading, the whole additional pieces at the end. It shows there is a human side to what could often be regarded as a purely academic offering. That would be a scandalous waste of such talent, and Purkiss deserves to be more widely read -- the subject is too important to be ignored.

Great book, but don't expect a gentle time of it.