Abstract
According to E.H Carr, "The study of history is the study of causes", and in order to understand the wars of the three Kingdoms that occurred in England, Scotland and Ireland during the reign of Charles I and that ended in the trial and execution of the King in 1649, various debates have occurred among historians about their causes, almost since the war was over. Already in the 17th century, the royalist Earl of Clarendon argued the causes were short-term and political, while the republican James Harrington claimed the wars were the result of long-term major changes in society. The debate has continued ever since, and there is still no consensus about it.
In the 1960s, some Marxist and Whig explanations emphasized the long terms causes of the conflict, respectively the economical and social changes, and the religious and political divisions. However, these views have quickly been considered as too narrow by revisionist accounts that emphasize the role of Charles I as the main cause of the war and not as the puppet of forces beyond his control. Indeed, for Conrad Russell "the existence of an unsuccessful king on the throne is perhaps the only thing capable of contributing to the questions about the causes of the civil war" .
However, it might seem a little reductionist to explain such a political event only by short-terms decisions made by a single man. More recently, some post-revisionist interpretations have emphasized the importance other long-term factors as well, like the geographical dimension of the kingdoms and the relationship between them. Indeed, the wars also have to be understood in terms of management of three different and complex territories, with different religious and constitutional traditions, which is why it is relevant to call it the "wars of the three kingdoms" rather than the "civil war".
