Dr. Ian Gentle’s The New Model Army: Agent of Revolution is a political and military history of the turbulent years of the English Civil War and Revolution.
Gentles sets the goal for this narrative history as “to listen to the voices of those who lived through the Revolution, to attend to what they said and wrote, and to refrain from subjecting them to ‘the enormous condescension of posterity.’” In doing so, he provides a balanced view of The New Model Army, highlighting its role in ending absolute monarchy, advocating for democracy, and supporting unbiased legal reform, while also acknowledging the challenges presented by a standing army, the Protectorate, and ultimately a “naked military dictatorship.” (297) When using the term, “the enormous condescension of posterity,” he adopts it from historian E.P. Thompson, who warns against judging previous generations by modern standards. Gentles succeeds in offering an unprejudiced view of the New Model Army.
Perhaps an alternative title for the book could be The Rise and Fall of the New Model Army. Gentles traces the army’s beginnings with an ordinance by the Commons on January 28, 1645, through the early victories in 1645 and 1646, the second Civil War, the Regicide of Charles I, the Levellers’ mutinies, the conquests of Ireland and Scotland, the Protectorate, the return of the monarchy under Charles II, and The New Model Army’s laying down its arms under the Act of Indemnity in 1660.
Dr. Ian Gentles is a Professor of History at Tyndale University College in Toronto, Ontario. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of London, England. His specialization is in British history from 1500 to 1800. His other books include Oliver Cromwell: God’s Warrior and the English Revolution (2011), The English Revolution and the Wars in the Three Kingdoms, 1638-1652 (2007), and Soldiers, Writers, and Statesmen of the English Revolution (1998). For the book, Gentles relies on primary sources from the Oxford archives and the British Library. The critical printed sources are thousands of pamphlets and newspaper articles, also housed in the British Library. However, for this narrative history, Gentles relies heavily on secondary sources.
Unlike the social history readings in our course by Dyer, Kaufman, and Mansell, Gentles presents his top-down history, focusing on the major political and military figures, starting with Charles I, where he states, “It was the king who fired the opening shot in England when he declared war on Parliament.” (2) He recognizes the pressure from citizens and lower-ranking soldiers who, at different times, initiated and demanded change throughout the period. However, these actors remain unnamed. Instead of using names, Gentles refers to them as numbers. For example, reporting the initial size of the army at 20,000 and those killed in the New Model Army’s battles. Even in reviewing the mutinies at Ware, Whalley’s Regiment, and Burford, some higher-ranking leaders were named, but the lower-level soldiers were simply referred to as “agitators,” “ringleaders,” “rank and file,” or “mutineers.” After suppressing these mutinies, “the army’s rank and file never found their political voice again.” (237) The officer corps would drive the political changes.
Perhaps the most consistent theme throughout his history is religion. Gentles avoids theological debates and instead explores the motivating power of the New Model Army’s religious beliefs. “The religious energy that imbued the army affected both its fortunes on the battlefield and its relations with civilians.” (59) However, beyond unifying the army, faith became the army’s goal to enforce on society. Gentles notes that with the expulsion of the Rump Parliament in 1648, Cromwell’s defense was “I have sought the Lord” as his justification for his military takeover. And the army’s support followed, with Gentles stating their motivation was that “if the Revolution was to be safe, the godly would have to govern for the foreseeable future.” (250)
For the most part, Gentles avoids engaging in the historiographical debates about this period. One exception is when he discusses the regicide of Charles I. He notes that “A younger group of historians has recently argued that neither the purged Parliament, nor the army, nor the High Court of Justice wanted the king’s death.” (148) Michael Bradick presented this case of an unintended regicide in God’s Fury: A New History of the English Civil War. To counter this, Gentles states that “a number of scholars have rejected this revisionist interpretation” (149), citing in his footnotes that the idea was challenged by Mark Kishlansky in his article “Mission Impossible: Charles I, Oliver Cromwell and the regicide.” Gentles concludes this discussion by saying that Cromwell, starting in 1648, was determined to see the king killed because he was “a man whose heart God has hardended.” (149) Certainly, if he were to dive into historiographical controversies, it could take over the book.
Looking at the broader picture, Gentles’ book emphasizes the chain reaction that can occur once a conflict starts. What began as a Civil War, he argues, evolves into a revolution. Therefore, the subtitle of his book describes the New Model Army as the “Agent of Revolution.” However, at some point, the revolution must come to an end. The army that was “Fired by revolutionary zeal” eventually became “tamely submitted to the return of the son of the tyrant they had vanquished only eleven years before.” (319)
In conclusion, Gentles’ The New Model Army offers a comprehensive, balanced, and accessible account of the Civil War and Revolutionary era in English history. He does not judge the major figures of this time nor excuse their actions, but allows their behavior to speak for itself without modern bias. It is notable that some people today cannot avoid this reinterpretation. For example, Buchholz in Early Modern England recounts how Margaret Thatcher spoke at the Bicentenary of the French Revolution, saying that “Britain was great precisely because it had never had a revolution.” Buchholz adds that “British attitudes to the events of the 1640s and 1650s are conflicted and ambiguous . . . there was no clear ‘right’ side for politically correct moderns to embrace.” (250) Gentles avoids these traps.