Titlebook: Restoration Historians and the English Civil War; Royce MacGillivray Book 1974 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands 1974 Civil War.Eng

孵化

書目名稱Restoration Historians and the English Civil War影響因子(影響力)




書目名稱Restoration Historians and the English Civil War影響因子(影響力)學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Restoration Historians and the English Civil War網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開度




書目名稱Restoration Historians and the English Civil War網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開度學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Restoration Historians and the English Civil War被引頻次




書目名稱Restoration Historians and the English Civil War被引頻次學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Restoration Historians and the English Civil War年度引用




書目名稱Restoration Historians and the English Civil War年度引用學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Restoration Historians and the English Civil War讀者反饋




書目名稱Restoration Historians and the English Civil War讀者反饋學(xué)科排名

Limerick

使入迷

978-94-010-1627-8Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands 1974

音的強弱

高深莫測

Conclusion,Here it may be worthwhile to make some generalizations about how the historians examined in this study approached the historical problem of the Civil War.

mitten

Affable

Parliamentarian and Whig Historians from the Restoration to 1702,hich their Parliamentarianism led them. We have seen that in the same period Rushworth expresses his Parliamentarian views only weakly, Whitelocke is close to being a repentant Parliamentarian, and Baxter condemns much of the outcome of the Parliamentarian cause.

MOT

Whitelocke,y, and usefulness of which… are so universally allowed.” . But J. L. Sanford, who was one of the founders or revivers of accurate knowledge of the Civil War in the nineteenth century, spoke of the . “thorough untrustworthiness.”.

勤勞

Royalist Historians from the Restoration to 1702,essor had not existed. Presumably these statements would not have been true if more of the histories had been of high quality; most of them were the ancestors of modern textbooks and modern popular histories, not of Gardiner’s scholarly and authoritative volumes.

不適當(dāng)