The British civil wars are well known for their major pitched battles, sieges, and skirmishes on land. Much less attention has been paid to the maritime dimension of the conflict. Richard Blakemore and Elaine Murphy set out to remedy that lacuna by providing an accessible and comprehensive account of the British civil wars at sea. In doing so, they seek both to assess the influence of maritime activity on the course and outcome of the wars and to better understand the consequences of that conflict for the development of British naval power and imperial history.

The opening chapter provides much useful context on warfare at sea in the early modern period, including the role of private enterprise, technological and tactical advancements, and the growth of state navies. The issue of finance, in particular, looms large in this chapter and culminates with a discussion of the infamous ship money levies of the 1630s. Despite having a large fleet at his disposal during the Bishops’ Wars of 1639–40, Charles I's ambitions outstripped his finances, culminating in his ignominious defeat. The second chapter examines the outbreak of war in England from the perspective of maritime issues, including the struggle between king and Parliament over naval resources. Particularly fascinating is the discussion of popular politics and allegiance among London's seafaring communities. Chapter 3 then provides a detailed narrative of the wars at sea from 1642 to 1646 and its impact on the direction of the war in all three Stuart kingdoms.

Indeed, this book reinforces a point that scholars have long recognized: that the civil wars were “British” in nature, fought within and between the three Stuart kingdoms. As such, chapters 4 and 5 focus on the nature, administrations, and activities of the various naval forces engaged in the wars in the waters around the British Isles and their colonies. Understandably, more space is dedicated to the larger, and better documented, parliamentarian navy. Besides reconstructing the size of Parliament's naval forces, consideration is also given to the sailors who served and the extent to which they were committed volunteers or merely pressed into service. Yet Blakemore and Murphy also make meticulous use of (often fragmentary) evidence to provide a compelling account of the maritime efforts of the royalists, the Irish confederates, and the Scottish covenanters. The royalists and confederates, in particular, were able to put to sea impressive forces, albeit they comprised chiefly privateers that were capable of frustrating, rather than obliterating, Parliament's fleet.

Parliament's enemies made effective use of the naval resources that they managed to assemble, but they were never in a position to take the fight to Parliament's men-of-war. There were no major naval engagements during the civil wars to rival those of the Anglo-Dutch Wars later in the century. Yet, as the authors persuasively argue, this lack of major naval engagements does not mean that the maritime dimension was unimportant. After all, the civil wars were decided less by decisive pitched battles than they were by an attritional contest over territory and resources. The war at sea was a crucial component of that struggle. For one thing, naval support helped to relieve a number of sieges of coastal garrison towns deep in enemy territory, such as Plymouth or Bunratty. More generally, all sides in the conflict recognized the importance of keeping their communication and supply lines open while frustrating those of their enemy. Shipping was needed to move men, munitions, and supplies not only within kingdoms but also between them. Ultimately, this book reminds us how the odds were firmly stacked in Parliament's favor. While Blakemore and Murphy suggest Parliament's victory was “far from certain” (57), not least because of the tenacity of royalist and Irish confederate maritime efforts, the weight of evidence presented here still makes that outcome seem more than likely.

As the final two chapters suggest, perhaps the best chance that the royalists had to take the fight to Parliament at sea was in the wake of the mutiny of the parliamentarian fleet in the Downs in 1648. Yet, despite providing a boon to the royalist cause, the opportunity was ultimately “squandered” (172). If anything, the mutiny ultimately strengthened Parliament's hand. It brought about a reorganization of Parliament's naval forces that ensured its personnel were sympathetic to the aims of the army radicals. This new-modeled navy went on to meet the threats posed to the nascent Commonwealth regime, not only by harassing the remnants of Prince Rupert's squadron but also by providing logistical and military support for the conquest of Ireland and Scotland.

Ultimately, the authors conclude that the civil wars at sea had long-term consequences for British naval and imperial history. Wartime necessity accelerated the shift toward complex, state-controlled naval forces that were far less reliant on private enterprise. While Blakemore and Murphy are careful to stress that they are not presenting a triumphalist narrative and suggest that missteps occurred, their claim that “unlike the Stuart monarchs” Oliver Cromwell was “relatively uninterested” in naval affairs (178) needs elaboration. It seems to overlook the infamous “Western Design” and the central role played by the Cromwellian navy in that venture. As Carla Pestana's recent study of The English Conquest of Jamaica (2017) demonstrates, many of the naval developments outlined in this book were consolidated under Cromwellian rule.

Overall, Blakemore and Murphy have produced an accessible survey of a neglected dimension of Britain's civil wars that nuances our understanding of that conflict. Besides analyzing a wealth of primary material, they synthesize much secondary work that deserves to be better known. It also opens up a number of interesting research questions for the future, not least the issue of popular politics among the maritime communities of the British Isles. It is essential reading for any historian or student of the civil wars, and it makes an important contribution to the ongoing debate about the “military revolution.”