Prisoners in the English Civil War
Barbara Donagan discusses the variable treatment of captives by captors between Crown and Parliament and what light it sheds on the manners and mores of the times.
Treatment of prisoners of war has traditionally been one of the touchstones by which people judge the humanity and decency of their enemies. Obviously atrocities – to prisoners and of other kinds – occur in all wars. The test is whether they appear exceptional or make up a regular pattern of inhumane conduct.
The English Civil War offered examples of painfully conscientious behaviour by captors and prisoners, but it was also marked by casual cruelty and atrocities: at Hopton Castle, for example, twenty-five prisoners were slaughtered in cold blood, while in Barthomley church in 1643 twelve prisoners to whom quarter had been granted were stripped, stabbed to death, or had their throats cut 'most barbarouslie and contrary to the Lawes of Armes'. The perpetrators of these outrages were castigated as offenders against the laws of war for, then as now, it was recognised that systematic infringement of accepted codes embittered conflict, lead to reprisal, and inhibited post-war reconciliation. What happened to prisoners in England in the 1640s illuminates both the nature of the Civil War itself and post-war rapprochement.
To continue reading this article you need to purchase a subscription, available from only £5.
Start my trial subscription now
If you have already purchased access, or are a print & archive subscriber, please ensure you are logged in.
Please email digital@historytoday.com if you have any problems.
