Author: Tyler Thompson

Arel, Maria Salomon. English Trade and Adventure to Russia in the Early Modern Era: The Muscovy Company, 1603-1649. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2019. 

As the fog rolls over the port of Archangel, English merchants rush to get goods boarded onto ships. The naval goods bound for England have dried up over the last couple of decades and the tradewinds in Russia are changing for the worst. The Russian government would withdraw the special status enjoyed by English merchants where they did not have to pay Russian customs. The Muscovy Company was originally intended to find a northern passage to Asia. However, Richard Chancellor found the government of Muscovy in Present-day Russia. Chancellor was greeted by Muscovite officials and was sent to Moscow to meet Tsar Ivan IV. After meeting with the Tsar, Chancellor retired to London to discuss his findings with Mary I. Mary charted the Muscovy Company in 1555 and they immediately got to work sending goods between England and Russia. 

Maria Salomon Arel is a professor of History at Marianopolis College in Quebec, Canada. English Trade and Adventure is the first book that she has published, but she has written many articles that discuss trade and the Muscovy government in the 17th century. The articles have been published in academic journals and some have been turned into chapters for edited volumes. English Trade and Adventure was published by Lexington Books. Lexington Books specializes in published peer-reviewed books that are not affiliated with a University press. Arel breaks ground in her first book and she makes an outstanding argument that changes how we should view the Muscovy Companies’ decline during the English Civil War. 

Arel formats English Trade and Adventure in a chronological form that follows the formation of the company and many of the challenges it had to face over the 16th and 17th centuries. As the narrative progress, a fuller picture is made of the company and how it balanced changes in Russia with changes in England. Arel argues that the Muscovy Company was not pushed out of the region by the Dutch traders, as other historians have argued, but rather that the company took a backseat to the larger markets that opened up to England after the English Civil War. Arel uses unused Russian sources that show that the Muscovy Company was not killed but rather slowly died on the vine. Her argument refutes other arguments made by previous historians and uses sources both from England and Russia for evidence. The Muscovy Company has a complicated story that suffered from developments in both Russia and England that forced the company to decline. 

The English and the Dutch engaged in a protracted trade war that spanned the globe. In Russia, it was no different. Both countries vied to control the markets and as Russia consolidated power and turned towards the West, Russia wanted a greater say in their markets. England looked toward Russia as a source for raw materials it needed for the navy. England during the 16th and 17th centuries were on the verge of establishing a global empire and needed the rope to maintain their navy. Through Russia, England imported cheap rope that sustained the Royal Navy throughout this period. England set about constructing the port city of Arkhangelsk, in Northern Russia, to ship their goods. The Russian market also used English to export textiles created in England. The flow of goods between Russia and England was beneficial to both parties. 

The Muscovy Company continued to thrive up to the English Civil War. Arel points out that the schism that hit England also hit the Muscovy Company. The older merchants allied themselves with the Royalists, whereas the younger traders allied themselves with Parliament. The English Civil War was a major sticking point for the Russians. The Russian Tsar saw the company as turning their back on their sovereign and relations soured. However, relations did not cease and a new generation of traders was prepared to expand the economic reach of the English state. 

 Arel points out that the younger generation was using the ever-expanding English Empire to grow their trade partners. While working for the Muscovy Company, merchants would regularly trade for goods that would be shipped to the Americas or the powerful states of the Middle East. The younger merchants of the Muscovy Company were not bound by the traditional rules of an earlier trade. They were not members of elite families and were using new networks of trade to deal with more goods. Taking advantage of the increasing reach of English interests in the 17th century, the Muscovy Company was able to trade in a larger number of goods that were not bound for Russia or England. Some of the goods were destined for the Mediterranian and the Levant through the use of traditional Russian trade routes. 

Arel finds new Russian sources that point to English and Dutch cooperation while in Russia. The Dutch and English merchants would work together to pressure the Tsar to preserve special economic status that prevented an export tax. Her new sources fly in the face of previous scholarship that states the Muscovy Company was pummeled to death by the power of the Dutch Merchants. Arel argues that instead the Dutch and the English worked together in some instances until the Russian Tsar was unwilling to work with the English anymore. The Muscovy Company was overshadowed in English thinking by the larger markets and colonies that were established around the globe. 

Arel writes an original argument that is supported by both Russian and English sources. Her argument is original and turns away from the previous scholarship to provide a clearer picture. Previous scholarship has only used English sources to examine the Muscovy Company. Arel, on the other hand, uses sources from both countries to create an original argument that complicates the picture of the company. English Trade and Adventure sets out to chart a new course in the history of trade in Russia. Her structure and argument make for a fascinating read that challenges previous scholarship and opens a dialog on the history of the English trade in Russia. 

Reviewed by Tyler Thompson 

Cressy, David. England’s Islands in a Sea of Trouble. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020. 

Outcrops in the English Channel are battered by waves as the sparse inhabitants brace against the raids by pirates and privateers. The small islands off the coast of England were outcrops of the Empire and possessed unique economic and political institutions. Throughout the history of the archipelago around England, the islands served as targets of opportunity for pirates and tax havens in the modern era. All of the islands suffered from isolation from the mainland and were often an afterthought of the central government in London. However, during moments of crisis, the islands could be used by warring factions as a safe retreat from enemy forces. In the early modern period, the islands were difficult to govern from London due to their isolated nature and the terrain around the islands. How the Islands were governed is the central question that David Cressy tries to answer in England’s Islands in a Sea of Trouble. 

David Cressy is a professor of early modern England at The Ohio State University. He has written extensively on social aspects of England in the early modern period. Alongside this book, Cressy has written numerous works on early modern Egland. He focuses on the time of the Tudor and Stuart dynasties and the social revolution that followed those periods. Cressy is an expert in early modern England and throughout his number of books, he provides a complex analysis of society in early modern England.

The layout of England’s Islands is easy to follow and provides a well-structured book that provides case studies of some of the islands and moves into larger social and cultural impacts on the islands. The first section of the book includes two case studies of the Island of Lundy off the coast of Wales and the Channel Islands between England and France. The second half of the first section examines the natural conditions that made the islands hard to govern and the economies that allowed the islands to maintain a population. The second section examines the social and everyday life of the islands starting directly after the English Civil War. Cressy dedicates chapters to the English Civil War, the Interregnum, and the Restoration of Charles II. Section two covers the islands of England during the revolutionary time during the early modern period. 

The third section examines the use of the islands as a prison starting with Charles I. Charles I used some of the islands as prisons for religious dissidents that threatened his power. The following chapter explores the year-long imprisonment of Charles I after the royalists lost the English Civil War. The following two chapters investigate the prison island system through the Interregnum and the Restoration. The third section explores the ways that the central government used the islands as a resource to cure their political problems. 

Cressy writes a wonderful book that examines a part of the English empire that remained outside of England proper but still benefited from the rights of English citizens. During the early modern period, the government in London wanted to create a unified state that was organized around their power. The Islands around England proved resistant to incorporation into England. Some of the islands, such as Lundy, did not have resources or a strategic position for London to be concerned about their incorporation. Other islands, such as the Isle of Wight and the Channel Islands, were very important strategically to England due to their proximity to their lifelong rival France. London needed to control the islands to project their power into the English Channel and to prevent the spread of French influence towards England. 

Some islands had a strong cultural tradition that conflicted with the wishes of London. The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands were traditionally part of different governments. The Isle of Man was settled by Norse conquerors that traveled throughout the British Isles. The traditional government has remained in power on the island and they did not speak English but rather spoke a Norse tongue. The Channel Islands also had established cultural ties that traced back to the days of William of Normandy. The Islands were a part of the Kingdom of Normandy and they spoke a form of French. The Channel Islands were right off the coast of France and were threatened by invasion. The military governors of the Channel Islands were appointed by the Crown. Throughout their history, the Channel Islands were a thorn in the side of England by resisting central authority.  Both islands resisted the tide of centralization emanating from London. 

Many of the islands around England were used as prisons by the central authority in London. During the reign of Charles I, religious dissidents were moved to the islands to isolate them from the rest of the population. Charles I also spent a year as a prisoner on the Island of Wight. During his time on the island, Charles constantly devised ways to escape and rally loyal forces to overthrow Parliament. During the Interregnum, the islands were used to house a number of prisoners, including royalist army officers, religious dissidents, and conspirators against the regime. The stance towards the periphery islands was similar in both the reign of Charles I, the Interregnum, and Charles II. 

David Cressy is an expert in early modern England and provides another well-researched book that examines a subject that is gaining traction in historiography. More work is needed to bring the islands around England fully into the history, but Cressy provides a wonderful example of how to bring an oft-overlooked subject into the wider field of English history. The book has many strong points, including strong research and a compelling argument. Cressy does a great job at compiling a number of sources that back up the argument that the author is making. One aspect of the book I believed that detracted from it was the format of the book. The book is not organized chronologically and it made it difficult to follow each island through time. Each section is organized thematically and multiple times I had to reread paragraphs to follow the time jump. Overall, Cressy delivered a good book that adds to previous works. He is bringing to light a missed part of the history of the British Isles. 

Reviewed by Tyler Thompson, Student at George Mason University. 

Bellany, Alastair and Cogswell, Thomas. The Murder of King James I. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2015. 

Alastair Bellany and Thomas Cogswell collaborate to create an original book that looks at the creation and movement of the radical theory that King James I was murdered. The book is rather refreshing and does not look at whether James I was murdered but instead looks at the spread of the theory that Duke Buckingham poisoned him on his death bed. The death of King James occurred during a difficult time in English history, and his successor, Charles I, would inherit a kingdom on the verge of revolution. Shortly after the death of James I, rumors spread that Buckingham poisoned James to give the throne to Charles. The spread of the theory of murder sheds light on England’s political and social history in the early years of the 1600s. 

 England in the 1620s was a kingdom filled with fear and paranoia. The country was gripped by fear of a catholic invasion, and the Protestant nations of Europe were threatened by the dual threat of Austria and Spain. The Netherlands and various German states were under threat, and Austria invaded some German states to place a Catholic king on the throne. Charles tried to walk the knife’s edge of supporting protestants in Europe and avoiding war with the Catholic nations. Charles I actions towards Spain drove a wedge between him and English citizens. The grievances that English citizens had towards Charles and his use of the king’s power sparked the tender generated around James’ I death. 

The death of King James was a traumatic event for many in the King’s court. Duke Buckingham was a great friend of James, and he grew in power due to his friendship. In the last days of James’ life, Buckingham brought several medicines to heal James. The medication did not work, and James died several days later. Buckingham was with James till his dying breath, which implicated him in the eyes of some to poison the king. The death of the king sent shockwaves throughout English society. Some in Parliament were hesitant with the growing power of Buckingham and the monarch. James died in 1625, George Eglisham wrote a pamphlet in 1626 that argued that Buckingham caused James’ I death. Eglisham’s pamphlet recounted courtly suspicion and a conspiracy to kill the King of England.

Eglisham’s pamphlet The Forerunner of Revenge was based on an underlying distrust of monarchical power in the early 1600s. Members of Parliament saw an increase in the monarch’s strength as a direct threat to their power. The theory that Buckingham killed James I was not just reserved for members of Parliament. Bellany and Cogswell demonstrate that people from all spheres of English life had heard that the King had been murdered. In one notable example, a man who cared for cattle at a local fair listened to the rumor of the murder of the king. The distrust of the monarch trickled down to every stratum of society. 

The Duke of Buckingham was murdered in 1628 by loyal members of the Parliament after the Duke survived multiple instances of impeachment. Both times that Buckingham faced impeachment, Charles I granted a favor for his friend by dissolving Parliament before a vote could occur. The treatment Charles I gave to Buckingham widened the divide between the monarch and Parliament. Popular sentiment was in favor of the death of Buckingham, and he was very unpopular in Parliament. Through abolishing Parliament Charles, I became a threat to the power of Parliament by abusing his powers as king. 

One of the wild theories that circulated in the 1620s was Charles I was complicit in the murder of his father. Charles I had much to gain from his father’s death, but having his father killed was a step too far. No evidence was ever brought forth that Charles killed his father, but the rumor persisted. The pamphlet was a product not just for English readers but, instead, was intended for a European audience. Eglisham produced the pamphlet in Brussells, and the death of King James was a moment that would have impacts on broader European events. Charles I would bring England into a war with Spain and be the monarch who suffered the fate of a violent revolution that took his life. 

The Murder of King James I is a good book that takes a new look at a significant event in English history. Instead of ruling on the validity of 400-year-old rumors, focus on the spread of information. Their analysis reads like an intellectual history that examines how the event of James’ death was remembered around Europe shortly after it happened. Parliament’s distrust towards Charles I and his actions while king led to a revolution between the monarch and Parliament that engulfed all of England. 

I enjoyed how Bellany and Cogswell approached the death of King James I. They avoided blaming who killed James and instead gave an honest history of how it was perceived in England at the time. I also was astonished that looking at pamphlets from the 1620s could be used to examine the roots of the English Civil War. Between the fear of Catholic influence and the divide between the King and Parliament, the English Civil War has roots that trace back decades. The emphasis on pamphlets on the period provides insight into how people thought of their government and its members. The Murder of King James I blends political, social, and intellectual history for an original synthesis. 

I disliked the number of direct quotes. Direct quotes are great to provide a sense of the people from the time, but many paragraphs are filled with lengthy passages. Some selections could be paraphrased or used in the notes section. Overall, the book was an insightful read that had a hint of true-crime drama mixed with several different historical approaches to create a unique synthesis for the foundations of the English Civil War.

Roper, L. H. Advancing Empire: English Interests and Overseas Expansion, 1613-1688. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2017. 

L. H. Roper writes a thoroughly researched book on the early years of the British Empire. Roper does not use the kingdom’s perspective but instead looks at the merchants and trade company leaders who expanded the empire in a quest for wealth. Roper argues that the central government in London was reluctant to take the lead in establishing new colonies but instead permitted private individuals to found colonies on their behalf. Tracing the actions of private individuals gives the book a bottom-up approach towards the empire. Roper’s approach breathes life into the empire and shows that the British Empire created in the 18th century was not inevitable. Actions made by private individuals shaped the colonial experience of Britain in the early years of the empire. 

Two significant events that occurred in the early stage of the English empire were the English Civil War and the Restoration of Charles II. The English Civil War was a significant moment in the 1600s and marked a detour in the colonial history of England. Colonial leaders, such as Maurice Thompson, detested that Charles I collected tariffs on trade in the colonies but did not keep the army in a position to protect and contest colonial holdings. Thompson was the principal tobacco merchant in Virginia. Thompson held considerable sway in the Americas and circles in London. With his power in both America and England, Thompson was able to rally people to the side of the Parlament in the early 1640s. 

The Restoration of Charles II brought the experience of the parliamentary government to an end. With Charles II in the power of England, the colonial experience was similar to the reign of Charles I. Tariffs were collected with all trade from the colonies, and merchants lost a stream of money that was secured between the powers of Charles I and II. The restoration in 1660 sparked an influx in development in Asia. Thompson was appointed to head the East India Company, and investors believed that Thompson would boost the money made by the Company. The Gunia Company in West Africa was also reorganized with a single figure at the head of the Company. English expansion exploded in Asia and Africa during this time, and Charles II watched as his empire grew. 

Throughout the book, Roper notes instances where the government in London was dragged into conflict with other European nations by individuals who lived in the colonies or had an economic interest in English expansion. The most prominent example of colonial conflict expanding into a European war was the Second Dutch-Anglo war in 1664. English privateers captured Dutch ships to expand English influence in the Americas and Africa. King Charles I sent a representative to the English African Company to protect them from Dutch incursions. The British sent a force to capture the Dutch colony of New Netherland. Shortly after the capture of New Netherland, England declared war on the Netherlands. The interests of the colonial companies drug England into their second war with the Netherlands. 

The government of Charles I granted the power to establish English holdings throughout the Americas, Asia, and Africa to private citizens and had to suffer the consequences of their actions. Throughout the early days of the English empire, colonial companies had few limits on their power in their region of the world. The English colonial Company raised their armies to defend their territorial and economic interests in Asia and India. Colonial companies also had the power to interact with governments in their region. The colonial companies became political entities that could coordinate foreign policy with sovereign nations. The companies did not have to rely on the government in London to conduct trade and policy with sovereign nations and could make policies that benefited them. 

Roper provides a fresh outlook on how the English Empire expanded into the larger British Empire in the 18th century. The first three chapters give a perspective on three different regions of English Expansion; America, Africa, and Asia. All three of these regions provided the bases for the English Empire to expand to markets worldwide. Roper brings together previous scholarship to navigate how his work fits into historiography. I appreciated that he included previous scholarship because it provides a basis to understand how Roper sees his work. Having the ability to see how the author views their work offers a window into the author’s thoughts. 

Roper uses several sources that bring together government documents and references from nongovernmental sources. Roper does note that previous scholarship has leaned towards government documents and provides a skewed sense of the early English Empire. Previous scholarship shows that the government was the leading proponent of English expansion. However, when one uses nongovernmental sources, a clearer picture is that colonial companies pushed for the growth of English land and markets for their products. The government in London was reactionary towards colonial expansion and conflict. Charles I and II did not take the lead in establishing new colonies throughout the world. Instead, they gave the ability to found colonies to colonial companies that could act on behalf of the king. 

Roper provides a fresh outlook on the early years of the English Empire and challenges the previous notion that the king lead colonial expansion. I became lost whenever he introduced new people from the colonial companies throughout some parts of the book. Roper writes in a way that requires some previous knowledge of English colonial history. Some moments are glossed over, and he does not go into detail in those moments. Overall, Advancing Empire is a good book that showcases the pitfalls of previous scholarship and provides answers to fill in the gaps. He gives a new argument that brings to light new sources and argumentation. Without reading Advancing Empire, a clear understanding of the basis of the English Empire would be incomplete with the actions of private citizens pushed to the fringe. 

Reviewed by Tyler Thompson. 

Neil Murphy. The Tudor Occupation of Boulogne: Conquest, Colonisation and Imperial Monarchy, 1544-1550. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019. Hardback

Murphy is a professor of Medieval and Early Modern France, emphasizing the reign of English King Henry VIII. In The Tudor Occupation of Boulogne: Conquest, Colonisation and Imperial Monarchy, 1544-1550, Murphy argues that the English occupation of the Boulogne region in France was a significant shift in the imperial history of England. Murphy is filling a spot in the scholarship of empire building in Early Modern England. Murphy argues, “First of all, rather than view the establishment of colonies in the midlands of Ireland in the mid-sixteenth century as marking the beginning of a nascent British Empire, we should consider them concerning Henry VIII’s actions in France in the 1540s.” (230) Murphy argues that the study of the English Empire glosses over their actions in Northern France in the 1540s and starts with expanding into Scotland and Ireland in the 1570s. Murphy also points out that the English invasion of Boulogne differed from previous monarch’s wars in France due to Henry VIII not claiming his right to the French throne, but instead claiming the land by right of conquest. 

King Henry VIII invaded the Boulogne region in North-East France in 1544 and proceeded to Anglicanize the region. The population was deported from the area by the king, and English subjects were brought in to populate the now vacant land. The region was placed under English law and officially became English land rather than an English possession in France. The occupation and subsequent repopulation of Boulogne by the English was a major change in the English attitude towards territory outside of England proper. Before the invasion of Boulogne in 1544, English kings would justify an invasion of France by claiming the French throne. The English king would have to win over the population of France to support their adventure and occupation of land in France. Henry VIII, however, did not need to win over the population because he would import his population of English citizens into the region. 

Murphy spends a significant chunk of the book explaining the actions taken by Henry VIII in Boulogne and how those actions foreshadowed those that were taken in Ireland and Scotland by the British decades later. Actions such as the violence and the military action that Henry VIII used to conquer the region. The English army that Henry VIII assembled for the conquest was the largest force that England had amassed up to that point. The violence that came with the attacks was not uncommon according to standards of war at the time. However, the violence was uncommon when it came to the English invading France. As Murphy notes, “As we shall see, the killing of peasants, scouring of woods, burning of houses and destruction of crops to create famine conditions amongst a people the English deemed to be rebels were all measures Henry VIII had implemented in the Boulonnais in the 1540s, almost seven decades before Mountjoy laid waste to Ulster.” (2) English violence during a period of conquest was not a unique phenomenon, but the English had before been attempting to win over the native population in France to lay claim to the crown. Henry VIII abandoned that idea and set about to occupy the French lands as their conqueror and not their king. 

The subsequent paragraphs explain how the English conquered their newly acquired land. Henry VIII forced out the French peasants and brought in English peasants to populate the land. Bringing in English subjects made it easy for English laws and customs to be adopted. Henry VIII broke from traditional war aims and turned the newly conquered land in France into English land with English laws and subjects. 

Murphy’s intended audience is an academic one. He provides archival sources and primary sources that could be hard to understand for someone who does not understand the period. Many of the archival sources are written in English; however, their form of English is different and makes some of the sources challenging to understand. Murphy uses archives, primary printed references, and secondary printed sources to build his argument and weaves them together eloquently. One downside that the sources have is that Murphy uses a large number of secondary sources. He wraps his major argument around archival sources but more primary sources would have strengthened the argument. 

The book overall has many strong points. The argument is original and sets itself firmly within the field of Early Modern England. Murphy is filling a gap in the historiography and is challenging other scholarship that has been created surrounding the early British Empire. The previous historiography has placed English holdings in France and English conquests of Ireland and Scotland as distinctly different. They point out that the violence and occupation of Scotland and Ireland were unique to the region and started the first steps for the English Empire. Murphy, on the other hand, argues that English holdings in France were the beginning of England expanding outside its borders for the sake of claiming territory. The English expansion into Northern France was the first step for the English to create an empire that would span across oceans. Before England expanded into Scotland and Ireland, Henry VIII experimented with colonial conquest in Northern France. 

The Tudor Occupation of Boulogne: Conquest, Colonisation and Imperial Monarchy, 1544-1550 by Neil Murphy is a wonderful book that argues against the previous historiography and creates an original argument. Murphy has created a new argument that predates the conventional starting point of the English Empire. The Tudor Occupation of Boulogne is a must-read for anyone who is studying Early Modern England or the English Empire. Murphy challenges conventional historiography and treads into uncharted territory and delivers an original argument that is delivered with eloquence. Murphy uses archives, primary sources, and a large number of secondary sources to build his argument and writes in a clear manner that allows anyone to read. Without background knowledge of England in the early modern period, a reader can still understand his argument and its impact on historiography. 

Reviewed by Tyler Thompson, Graduate Student at George Mason University.