Ian Gentles’ The New Model Army: Agent of Revolution book review by Max Smith
In the mid-17th century, England was engulfed in a series of civil wars, mutinies, and revolutions that would eventually result in the deaths of as many as half a million English, Irish, and Scottish citizens, as well as that of King Charles I himself. Although this period is perhaps one of the most researched areas of English history, the historiography has not taken any dramatic new turns among recent historians, appearing to be one of those events of which “all there is to say about it has been said.”
In 2022, professor of History at Tyndale University Ian Gentles published his work entitled The New Model Army: Agent of Revolution, a comprehensive reexamination of this period which seeks to uncover the true accounts of this newly formed military force and their subsequent actions following the falling out between Parliament and King Charles I in 1642. Gentles states that in the second publication of this work he ultimately produced “a very different book from the one I first published,” due to his condensing of original material in order to add various new chapters.
Gentles’ writing style is reminiscent of older and more traditional histories of the period which precede him, given its top down framing, as well as its extensive use of charts and illustrations concerning budgets and battlefield movements. However, in many other ways he distinguishes himself from those traditional narratives by lending a greater deal of attention to the social, interpersonal, and religious dynamics which molded the actions of the army and its leaders. Given the extensive scope of this work It is also quite difficult to place The New Model Army squarely into one single category of historical literature. It is of course a military and political history, but he does not confine himself to these definitions by any means.
This book follows a chronological timeline of events which begins with the establishment of a new professional fighting force overseen by leaders such as Cromwell and Fairfax in the 1640’s and the initial successes they enjoyed over royalists. The author meticulously follows the political and military changes throughout England and its surrounding empires through the Second Civil war, execution of Charles, and death of Cromwell which ends with the eventual rejection of sole parliamentary rule and the reestablishment of the monarchy 20 years later. Each section of Gentel’s work is dedicated to a particular aspect of the army’s most active years ranging from highly statistical information regarding conscription, pay, and battlefield achievements, all the way to more elusive characteristics such as the effects of religion and disbelief among the ranks.
One thing I appreciated was his attention to the class differences which marked the roles of soldiers, for instance he states that “…it was clear that the poor were the ones being targeted. In principle all men between the ages of eighteen and sixty-five were liable to impressment, but any man, or the son of any man The new model army, rated at £5 in goods or £3 in land, was exempt.”p20 Unlike the sons of Yeoman and craftsmen which mainly composed the calvary, the infantry was made up of “scum” from the lowest classes of society. This inevitably had the effect that “Few foot soldiers understood or cared about the reasons for fighting against the king.”p21
As Tony mentioned in his review, the role of soldier’s religious beliefs (or lack thereof) is a major part of Gentles’ research. While he acknowledges that high morale was partially a result of a collective religious consciousness among soldiers, and that they eventually became nicknamed the “Praying Army,” he also poses the question of whether or not these religious services, both official and unofficial, were actually “meaningful to those who took part in them? Did they make a difference to the soldiers’ conduct?”p46 He demonstrates that during the early years of victories when soldiers were generally preoccupied on the battlefield, religious dissent was at its lowest. However after the fighting died down, more and more instances of heresy, quakerism, and debates on topics such as infant baptism grew steadily causing conflicts between soldiers and civilians.
By 1646 the new model army was facing increased threats of extinction by parliamentarians who wanted to curb their numbers in order to decrease the debt they owed soldiers, among other reasons. As a dramatic last ditch effort, Cromwell approved a plan to seize Charles I who had continued to plot against them along with the help of presbyterians. Gentles demonstrates that what followed was a series of political wars and conspiracies that ultimately resulted in the outbreak of the second civil war, setting in motion a chain reaction of disastrous events for England’s stability.
His examination of the personal aspects of Cromwell’s life adds to his arguments by calling to attention the deaths of his children and Cromwell’s wavering religious bravado which eventually collapsed with the defeat at the island of Hispaniola, an event that Gentles claims he never really recovered from.
Ian Gentles’ The New Model Army: Agent of Revolution is an extremely comprehensive review of the timeline between the First English Civil War and the Restoration of the Monarchy, a period of only 20 years in which the country’s history would be forever reshaped. I was immediately struck by the statistical nature of this work and the quantity of examples that Gentles provides his readers in order to paint a clear picture free of bias and without reliance on previous works on the subject. That being said, this is not a work which seems to make any one grand rejection of previous accounts, but rather one that seeks to be much more all encompassing in its use of evidence. For me that is the strongest aspect of Gentles’ methodology, but it is occasionally hampered by the feeling many of the examples he provides do not necessarily add to an overall argument.
It is thus useful to note that the author concludes this work by restating the dual natured legacy of the new model army by subsequent historians; having defeated absolute monarchy, and raising suspicion of standing armies simultaneously. Here we can see the clearest that what Gentles has actually done is to complicate these legacies by approaching his research without first having taken either side, but letting the evidence speak for him.