The five case studies support many cross-conflict comparisons. Many of these comparisons have never been made across all the groups considered in this book. There were surprising similarities between enemies as different as Scottish Presbyterians and Algonquians, but also intriguing differences. These cross-conflict comparisons relate to ad bellum, in bello and post bellum beliefs and actions, and are arranged accordingly. Some of the comparisons are made for all five case studies and others for only two, three or four.

Ad bellum

Victimisation. First, in each conflict, the Puritans had a deep and abiding sense of victimisation. Their enemies also felt this way, leading to competing discourses of victimisation. The national and religious identity of the perpetrator seemed to influence how they formed, nurtured, articulated and debated these beliefs. A few, like Roger Williams, were acutely aware of the ease with which victims could victimise. Although he cautiously and critically supported the godly in all five wars, he emphasised merciful justice.

The currency of conflict often depicts the same face on both sides of the coin – the victimised on one side was often the victimiser on the other. This suggests hidden dangers in a just cause, namely to redress wrongs through force puts one on a slippery slope that could lead to the creation of new victims.

In the years before the Pequot War, the English were largely indifferent to the Pequot, and vice versa. Several killings of Englishmen by Indians led the English to try to hold a trial to determine guilt. The clash of legal cultures spilt over into a clash of military cultures and civilians on both sides often bore the brunt of their leaders’ decisions. Acting in fear and frustration, the English sent a large force that could compel the Pequot to turn over suspected murderers. They ended up massacring or enslaving much of the Pequot population.

At Naseby, the sense of victimisation was much more theoretical, being inseparable from notions of proper worship and governance. It was the perceived violations of rights, privileges and godliness that led persons to take up arms against their sovereign. In the opening years of the war, the godly increasingly felt as if they were the victims of the king's policies and military forces.