Barry Coward (1941–2011): Historian of the English Civil War and the Revisionist Assault on Marxism

Barry Coward, who passed away in 2011, was a leading scholar in 17th-century English history for many years. As a dedicated lecturer at Birkbeck, University of London, and a past president of the Historical Association, Coward mentored countless students and authored influential works that serve as key references in the discipline. His books, The Stuart Age: England 1603–1714 and his biography of Oliver Cromwell, continue to be extensively used in university courses.

Coward’s career unfolded amidst substantial political and intellectual upheaval. His work should be interpreted within the broader historiographical shift starting in the 1970s, when the Marxist perspective on the English Revolution—especially advocated by Christopher Hill—encountered ongoing critiques. Hill and the Communist Party Historians’ Group demonstrated that rigorous scholarship could coexist with a revolutionary perspective, portraying the English Civil War as a crucial phase in the shift from feudalism to capitalism and the emergence of bourgeois dominance.

Coward supported the revisionist school, which called for dismantling this framework. The revisionists argued that "there was no long-term crisis of the Stuart state, no rising bourgeoisie, and no class conflict driving events.” They saw the English Civil War not as a revolution but as a political crisis fuelled by misjudgements, religious tensions, and Charles I's personal flaws. This perspective shifted the emphasis from structural causes to elite strategies and decision-making.

Coward held a moderate stance within this perspective. His work on the Stuart Age recognized aspects of social and economic unrest and acknowledged the importance of popular mobilization, but his interpretive approach was mainly revisionist. He questioned the idea of a bourgeois revolution and was hesitant about class analysis, viewing the conflict as a collapse of elite consensus rather than a revolutionary change caused by mass forces.

His biography of Cromwell highlights both the strengths and limitations of this approach. It offers a detailed, scholarly portrayal of Cromwell as a political figure. However, as noted in the document, it misses “a sense of the revolutionary dynamic, of the mass forces that drove events beyond the control of any individual.” In Coward’s portrayal, Cromwell appears as a figure influenced by circumstances; in Hill’s view, he embodies deep social change.

The emergence of revisionism was closely linked to the rightward shift in British society—marked by the defeat of the labour movement, the rise of Thatcherism, and an intensified ideological battle against Marxism after the USSR's collapse. Revisionists aimed to disconnect historical research from revolutionary politics, arguing that revolution was merely an illusion created by outdated Marxist ideas. Their efforts both mirrored and bolstered the dominant intellectual mood of the time.

Recently, 'post-revisionist' scholarship has challenged the dominance of revisionism by reintroducing structural analysis. Still, the main question persists: Is it possible to understand the English Revolution without Marxism? Their answer was no. “The revisionists could focus on empirical details, but they failed to offer a unified alternative explanation for why English society fragmented in the 1640s... Only Marxism... can explain these events.”

Barry Coward was a committed and meticulous historian whose work remains influential. However, his contribution should be viewed within a historiographical framework that, in the end, tended to mask the revolutionary nature of the 17th-century crisis. Grasping the English Revolution as a true revolution—and extracting its political lessons—is still closely linked to the Marxist tradition that Coward, despite his scholarly achievements, opposed throughout his career.

 

Historians on the Levellers and the English Revolution 1642-1652

by Chris Thompson

I am afraid that it is not true to claim that there was a dearth of works on the Levellers before Christopher Hill and other members of the Communist Party’s Historians’ Group began work to rescue them from historical oblivion or that this was the responsibility of Whig historians. S.R.Gardiner considered the Levellers’ influence in the period from 1647-1649 in some detail in Volume IV of his history of the English Civil War and in his biography of Oliver Cromwell: the first Agreement of the People, now known to be the product not of Leveller thinking but of a group of radicals around Henry Marten, appeared in 1889 in his Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution.

It was C.H.Firth who edited and published The Clarke Papers, which throw such light on relations between the leaders of the New Model Army, the Agitators and Levellers, between 1891 and 1901. Eduard Bernstein’s book, Cromwell and Communism; socialism and democracy in the great English Civil War was published in German in 1895 and in an English translation in 1930. G.P.Gooch’s work, The history of English democratic ideas in the 17th century, first appeared in 1898 and T.C.Pease’s book, The Leveller Movement; A Study in the history and political theory of the English Great Civil War, was published in 1916. Margaret James’s book, Social Problems and Policies during the Puritan Revolution 1640-1660, was published in 1930 as was J.W.Gough’s article, ‘The Agreements of the People’ in History in the following year. The truth is that there had been a significant amount of work done on the Levellers long before they attracted the attention of Christopher Hill or of the Communist Party’s Historians’ Group.

It is true that there were Marxist historians of importance working in the pre- and post-Second World War periods. But, by the early-1970s, their influence was largely spent as far as the early modern period was concerned as was that of Lawrence Stone. Marxist influence had never been overwhelming or absolutely predominant even if it had attracted the support of, perhaps, a third of the specialists in this period. Hugh Trevor-Roper, J.P.Cooper and J.H.Hexter had seen to that. ‘Revisionism’ in the sense you use the term was born in the late-1960s and was itself defunct by the early-1990s.

To be a non-Marxist is not to be a ‘revisionist’. Personally, I prefer a situation in which a range of influences and trends shape the historiography of the period before, during and after the struggles of the 1640s and 1650s in the British Isles. Critical attacks on Kishlansky, Morrill and Russell will not revive historical materialism of the kind advocated in the 1950s and 1960s. The Levellers were an interesting phenomenon and important for their ideas amidst the competing political and religious debates of the late-1640s but their support was relatively small and they were gone in the space of a very few years. Such a transient phenomenon deserves serious historical evaluation rather than hagiography.

Sir Michael Livesey (1614–c.1665): A Biographical Sketch

Sir Michael Livesey holds a unique and often confusing position in the political and military history of the English Civil War. Born in 1614 into a family gaining prominence in the English gentry, he exemplifies the complex relationship between local politics, religious beliefs, and the revolutionary movements that transformed mid-seventeenth-century England. Although he is later remembered as one of the most passionate of the king’s judges, his radical roots stem from a world far more complex than the clear-cut choices of the 1640s suggest.

Origins and Family Standing

A family influenced Livesey’s early life with a stable and growing social status. His grandfather was sheriff of Surrey, and his father established the Kentish branch of the Livesey family, embedding them in local society and politics. “The family soon became settled, so much so that they became essential community members.”

Their rise was solidified in 1627 when the Liveseys received a baronetcy, establishing their position within the county’s elite. This heritage highlights the surprising nature of Livesey’s later political path. ‘Considering the family’s high standing, it is somewhat puzzling that Michael Livesey was such a key figure for Parliament and also a radical independent.’

Early Political Activity and Puritan Zeal

By the late 1630s and early 1640s, Livesey was recognised for his strict Puritan views. As Jason Pearcy’s biography states, he supplied information “against recusants to the Long Parliament in November 1640.” His activism intensified in 1642, when he became a leading figure in the Kentish Petition of Grievances. This document sparked a strong parliamentary backlash and threatened the promoters with legal action.

Parliament’s declaration underscores the importance given to the petition: "Whosoever shall be found to further or to countenance this Petition… shall be held to be Disturbers of the peace of this Kingdom." Livesey’s involvement positioned him among the county’s most politically assertive individuals.

Civil War Service and Reputation

During the First Civil War, Livesey led a Kentish regiment and served as sheriff in 1643. His military career was characterised by both success and controversy. He was recognised for his strict tactics against Royalist troops. Still, his soldiers were often criticised for misconduct and looting, leading to warnings that he needed to control them "to prevent further alienation of the community."

Despite these tensions, Livesey’s political stance became more radical over time. He aligned with the Independent faction, which strongly advocated religious freedom, political reform, and, eventually, the abolition of the monarchy. His regiment supported Pride’s Purge in December 1648, an event that removed moderate members from the House of Commons and set the stage for the king’s trial.

Regicide

Livesey’s most lasting historical significance is his role as a regicide. Trusted by Cromwell and the military leadership, he served on the High Court of Justice and attended every session of Charles I’s trial. His signature ranks fifth on the death warrant. His passionate involvement is vividly described as: "He was so eager that he was almost waiting with a quill in his hand, dripping with ink." This depiction, both somewhat humorous and unsettling, captures the fervour with which Livesey embraced the revolutionary moment.

Motives and Historical Debate

Livesey left no diary and wrote little, making his personal motivations difficult to reconstruct. Historians have long debated why members of the gentry — men like Livesey — chose the parliamentary and even radical cause. Conrad Russell famously argued that long‑term structural causes cannot explain gentry radicalism, suggesting instead that Charles I’s frustrations were easier to understand than the gentry’s revolutionary impulses.

Russell states, “It is certainly easier to understand why sheer frustration might have driven Charles to fight… than… why the English gentry might have wanted to make a revolution.” In contrast, Marxist historians like Christopher Hill highlight the rise of new class forces and ideological movements.

Ann Talbot characterises Hill’s approach as identifying how social currents brought together people from diverse backgrounds to oppose the king. In contrast, localist historians like Alan Everitt and John Morrill offer a different perspective, highlighting that regional concerns—such as local grievances, religious conflicts, and county politics—had a greater impact on gentry actions than broad national ideologies. Morrill’s book, 'Revolt of the Provinces,' is a key work representing this view.

Conclusion

Sir Michael Livesey’s life exemplifies the contradictions of the English Revolution. A man of established gentry background, he became one of the most radical Independents and a willing participant in the king’s execution. His actions cannot be reduced to personal temperament or simple ideological commitment. Instead, they reflect the complex pressures of local politics, Puritan religious fervour, emerging class realignments, and the broader revolutionary crisis of the 1640s.

Marx's closing quote aptly summarises Livesey’s importance: “Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please…” Livesey was decisive and often passionate, yet he always operated within a rapidly changing world. His life vividly demonstrates how individuals can navigate — and sometimes even hasten — revolutionary forces.