|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 2, 2016 13:42:20 GMT
In the long run the effect would have been a far more durable union of the whole British Isles which we could see endure still today and with Scottish Nationalism still being very much a minority pursuit (and Irish nationalism too for that matter) You really are a vile little man. You don't even have the courage to say "yes". YES |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 2, 2016 13:43:28 GMT
In the long run the effect would have been a far more durable union of the whole British Isles which we could see endure still today and with Scottish Nationalism still being very much a minority pursuit (and Irish nationalism too for that matter) You really are a vile little man. You don't even have the courage to say "yes". You are a simple-minded tosser. Of course a massacre is not an appealing thing whoever are the victims of it. The point is that in RL massacres took place in this period - hundred's of thousands of lives were lsot in the English civil war and it's aftermath including in Ireland. In Adam's scenario this is all avoided and the whole UK (or whatever form it takes) moves forward more united and more peaceful. |
|
baloo
Conservative
Posts: 760
|
Post by baloo on Nov 2, 2016 14:39:46 GMT
You really are a vile little man. You don't even have the courage to say "yes". You are a simple-minded tosser. Of course a massacre is not an appealing thing whoever are the victims of it. The point is that in RL massacres took place in this period - hundred's of thousands of lives were lsot in the English civil war and it's aftermath including in Ireland. In Adam's scenario this is all avoided and the whole UK (or whatever form it takes) moves forward more united and more peaceful. You stated that you thought a "final solution" for Catholics and the systematic extremination of the native Irish so that British people could take their land would have been good things. You would have the world made "more united and more peaceful" by killing people whose only crime is not to agree with you. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2016 21:29:58 GMT
I can't imagine the there were enough Catholics to take control of the country - or putting it another way, that the surviving Protestant gentry and nobility would not have been enough to keep control of the country. I imagine there would have been a fierce anti-Catholic reaction and probably some hideous massacre of known Catholics, which would have at very least hampered any attempt to restore Catholicism - I imagine most leading Catholic peers would be busy trying to stay alive. But James I and VI would have been succeeded by his eldest son Henry, aged 11 at the time, requiring a regency. Assuming he still dies in 1612, you then have the succession of Charles I aged just 12 and another regency. So you have a weak monarchy for the best part of a generation. One wonders whether the civil war would have occurred - maybe there would have been an evolution towards a stronger role for parliament along the lines of what occurred after 1660. Not sure Henry or Charles would have succeeded, basically because the explosion would have killed everyone within a couple of hundred meters radius. The vast majority of the protestant nobility as well. Without political leadership the remaining Catholic nobles would have had a fair chance of seizing control. |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922 
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Nov 2, 2016 21:48:24 GMT
Would England have become a Catholic country again? Would Parliament have become powerless? Parliament would have been blown to smithereens (and therefore would have ceased to exist) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2016 21:52:18 GMT
No. There would have been a massive suppression and a complete bloodbath of RCs as on previous occasions but this time with a very vindictive thoroughness. I could see two possible outcomes of a Catholic rising in Ireland. One is that the English government, busy trying to suppress Catholics in England and set up a regency council, fails to suppress the rebellion and an independent Catholic Ireland arises. Protestants flee or are killed. The constitution of any such Ireland would be interesting. More likely though is carlton43 's scenario. The Protestants in Ireland, with their backs against the wall, fight back viciously; the Scots, unaffected by an explosion at Westminster, come to their aid, with growing English support as the English Protestant establishment gets back on its feet. Both the successful Gunpowder Plot and the Catholic Irish rising would confirm every Protestant's worst fears about Catholics in general and Irish Catholics in particular; I think a "final solution" would be proposed and carried through In the extreme of this scenario Ireland would be wholly colonised by Protestant settlers, especially Scots and northern English, in a dry-run for British colonisation of North America, but alternatively there is not actual genocide, but repression so heavy as to wipe out Catholicism, rather like the elimination of Protestantism in Bohemia during and after the 30 Years War but with the religions reversed. I suspect that in this scenario Arminianism in the Church of England is discredited before it can start, and existing trends towards Calvinism in the CofE accelerate. The English and Scots have a common cause in suppressing Irish Catholics, promoting co-operation between the two parliaments both of which have enhanced roles during the minorities of Henry IX and Charles I. Perhaps we then have an increasingly Calvinist CofE and Presbyterian Church of Scotland uniting in a common Presbyterian Church, especially if Charles I is brought up in Calvinism by a hard-line Protestant council (rather as James VI and I was) and his tendency towards asceticism and fanaticism latches on to that religion. Of course there was a Catholic rising in Ireland in 1641 and Westminster did not effectively regain control until Cromwell's brutal campaign in 1649-1650. There were massacres of protestants by Catholics, but the extent of these is disputed. After Cromwell regained control there was a deliberate policy of taking lands from Irish landowners, however it would be far fetched to describe this as genocide or that is what is Cromwell ever intended. Brutal though he was at times, he was not a genocidal maniac. In your scenario you presuppose a successful re-conquest but that is far from certain without the genius of a Cromwell since the struggle with the crown brought him to national prominence, however without that struggle Cromwell may well have left Britain for America (something which in real life he did seriously consider). |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Nov 2, 2016 21:53:59 GMT
I suspect that in this scenario Arminianism in the Church of England is discredited before it can start, Arminianism didn't begin to catch on in England until Wesley, and doesn't really have much connection with Catholicism. So this outcome would only happen as the result of the butterfly effect, rather than as a direct consequence of the plot succeeding. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 2, 2016 21:57:47 GMT
I can't imagine the there were enough Catholics to take control of the country - or putting it another way, that the surviving Protestant gentry and nobility would not have been enough to keep control of the country. I imagine there would have been a fierce anti-Catholic reaction and probably some hideous massacre of known Catholics, which would have at very least hampered any attempt to restore Catholicism - I imagine most leading Catholic peers would be busy trying to stay alive. But James I and VI would have been succeeded by his eldest son Henry, aged 11 at the time, requiring a regency. Assuming he still dies in 1612, you then have the succession of Charles I aged just 12 and another regency. So you have a weak monarchy for the best part of a generation. One wonders whether the civil war would have occurred - maybe there would have been an evolution towards a stronger role for parliament along the lines of what occurred after 1660. Not sure Henry or Charles would have succeeded, basically because the explosion would have killed everyone within a couple of hundred meters radius. The vast majority of the protestant nobility as well. Without political leadership the remaining Catholic nobles would have had a fair chance of seizing control. Gunpowder if kept dry is still not that effective, especially loose packed in wooden barrels. If they were lucky and it went off in series and caused progressive stone collapse above, there would not have been anywhere near 100% death results. But we will play your game and assume a heavy toll. As a proportion of the people who matter it is a minute sub section. The next of kin take over at once and will be both younger, fitter and blood lust fighting mad. We soon replace all the MPs as well and enact a series of acts that eviscerate all opposition and with massive public support raise militia and local defence force to find, burn out and extirpate every last man jack of them. Within two years I doubt if there would be a 1000 Recusants in all of the Isles. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2016 22:03:52 GMT
Not sure Henry or Charles would have succeeded, basically because the explosion would have killed everyone within a couple of hundred meters radius. The vast majority of the protestant nobility as well. Without political leadership the remaining Catholic nobles would have had a fair chance of seizing control. Gunpowder if kept dry is still not that effective, especially loose packed in wooden barrels. If they were lucky and it went off in series and caused progressive stone collapse above, there would not have been anywhere near 100% death results. But we will plat your game and assume a heavy toll. As a proportion of the people who matter it is a minute sub section. The next of kin take over at once and will be both younger, fitter and blood lust fighting mad. We soon replace all the MPs as well and enact a series of acts that eviscerate all opposition and with massive public support raise militia and local defence force to find, burn out and extirpate every last man jack of them. Within two years I doubt if there would be a 1000 Recusants in all of the Isles. Re Recusants, except in Ireland where of course Protestants made up a tiny minority. Like I said elsewhere, Ireland would (and did in 1641) break free. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 2, 2016 22:08:20 GMT
Gunpowder if kept dry is still not that effective, especially loose packed in wooden barrels. If they were lucky and it went off in series and caused progressive stone collapse above, there would not have been anywhere near 100% death results. But we will plat your game and assume a heavy toll. As a proportion of the people who matter it is a minute sub section. The next of kin take over at once and will be both younger, fitter and blood lust fighting mad. We soon replace all the MPs as well and enact a series of acts that eviscerate all opposition and with massive public support raise militia and local defence force to find, burn out and extirpate every last man jack of them. Within two years I doubt if there would be a 1000 Recusants in all of the Isles. Re Recusants, except in Ireland where of course Protestants made up a tiny minority. Like I said elsewhere, Ireland would (and did in 1641) break free. We can never know but I warrant that the fervour of the moment and the will of the HOC would be a massive force sweeping through Ireland with sword and torch. There is no doubt at all in my mind that the island would have been entirely resettled in less than two years and in essence be a second very Protestant Scotland. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Nov 2, 2016 22:19:33 GMT
Arminianism didn't begin to catch on in England until Wesley, and doesn't really have much connection with Catholicism. So this outcome would only happen as the result of the butterfly effect, rather than as a direct consequence of the plot succeeding. I'm vaguely aware that Arminius was a big influence on Wesley, though I'm afraid I'm not clued up on that at all. But I was referring to the influence of Arminianism on Archbishop Laud and his proto-High Church movement, which I believe was the dominant force in Anglicanism in Charles I's reign. I'll confess to never having studied this, but it was the Big Idea of Nicholas Tyacke when I was at UCL. See N Tyacke: Anti-calvinists: The Rise of English Armininiansim 1590-1640 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2016 22:27:36 GMT
Re Recusants, except in Ireland where of course Protestants made up a tiny minority. Like I said elsewhere, Ireland would (and did in 1641) break free. We can never know but I warrant that the fervour of the moment and the will of the HOC would be a massive force sweeping through Ireland with sword and torch. There is no doubt at all in my mind that the island would have been entirely resettled in less than two years and in essence be a second very Protestant Scotland. We can know because unlike our musings it happened. Your scenario is very unlikely because despite being present in Ireland since 1171 the English never succeeded for long in quashing the evident desire of the Irish to be free and to fight for that freedom. The fact that Ireland is free, despite cultural and political oppression over the centuries is testament to that.
I am assuming that you do not mean intentionally to be an apologist for genocide or a denier of genocide but your views will be interpreted by others in that manner.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 2, 2016 22:35:13 GMT
We can never know but I warrant that the fervour of the moment and the will of the HOC would be a massive force sweeping through Ireland with sword and torch. There is no doubt at all in my mind that the island would have been entirely resettled in less than two years and in essence be a second very Protestant Scotland. We can know because unlike our musings it happened. Your scenario is very unlikely because despite being present in Ireland since 1171 the English never succeeded for long in quashing the evident desire of the Irish to be free and to fight for that freedom. The fact that Ireland is free, despite cultural and political oppression over the centuries is testament to that.
I am assuming that you do not mean intentionally to be an apologist for genocide or a denier of genocide but your views will be interpreted by others in that manner.
I am playing the game you initiated. I am not a detractor nor apologist for anything. I merely state what I believe on balance to have been likely. A massive explosion killing much of the nobility and some of royalty and say half our MPs> The shock and anger would be enormous. The vindictive retribution beyond your apparent imagination. Parliament would wish to secure itself and the realm forever against the Papist Threat and would call for a militia to suppress Ireland. The response would be overwhelming especially with the offer of lands and titles. The outcome would have been swift bloody and absolute. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Nov 2, 2016 22:38:19 GMT
Arminianism didn't begin to catch on in England until Wesley, and doesn't really have much connection with Catholicism. So this outcome would only happen as the result of the butterfly effect, rather than as a direct consequence of the plot succeeding. I'm vaguely aware that Arminius was a big influence on Wesley, though I'm afraid I'm not clued up on that at all. But I was referring to the influence of Arminianism on Archbishop Laud and his proto-High Church movement, which I believe was the dominant force in Anglicanism in Charles I's reign. I'll confess to never having studied this, but it was the Big Idea of Nicholas Tyacke when I was at UCL. See N Tyacke: Anti-calvinists: The Rise of English Armininiansim 1590-1640Wesley had an Arminian soteriology, and pretty much all the Arminianism within English-speaking Evangelical traditions since the Great Awakening can be traced back to his influence. I hadn't realised that Laud was heavily influenced by Arminianism, but certainly agree that you would not have got a proto-High Church movement in this period. It's plausible that something along those lines could have developed much later, but certainly not at any point in the 17th Century. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Nov 2, 2016 22:44:35 GMT
I feel carlton43 must be right both on the unlikeliness of the gunpowder wiping out the entire establishment and on the likely resilience of that establishment even in the face of a high death toll, which I feel would merely fuel the reaction. I really don't see how a fairly small number of Catholic peers and gentry could have overcome quite large puritan communities such as in the City of London, which were to heavily back Parliament a generation or so later. Of course there was a Catholic rising in Ireland under the Catholic Confederates, but it is going too far to say that they had control of Ireland until Cromwell put then down. There were effective fight-backs both from Scottish settlers and from the Anglo-Irish establishment. The relative success of the Confederates was partly due to division between the Protestant into Scots (at war with England since the Bishops War) Royalists and Parliamentarians - there is no such division in the scenario we're considering. Part of Cromwell's need to go to Ireland was due to the alliance between the Catholic Confederates and their previous Royalist (but largely Protestant) opponents, rather than an outright Catholic victory as such. But even before he got there the Protestants in Ireland had inflicted defeats on the Confederates, as some Royalist commanders had joined the Parliamentarians rather than align with Catholics against Cromwell. @odo's point about Spanish intervention makes sense; (not French, I think, I don't think it would have been in French interests to undermine the English crown given the mutual antipathy to Spain, which was the bigger power at the time. And the king of France at the time was Henri IV, a Protestant until he decided that "Paris is worth a mass" so unlikely to have acted out of sympathy for Catholicism. He was after all the intended victim of St Bartholomew's Day, and the ultra-Catholics got him in the end.) But the size of the intervention would have been key; they did intervene a few years before the Plot and were decisively defeated at Kinsale in1601. I could see Ireland going either way, but I feel the balance is against a Catholic victory and for a horrible retaliatory massacre. I do think it is interesting to speculate what sort of government would have followed in an independent Catholic Ireland - perhaps a sort of rural Catholic United Provinces, with the O'Neills filling the role of the Princes of Orange? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2016 22:49:52 GMT
We can know because unlike our musings it happened. Your scenario is very unlikely because despite being present in Ireland since 1171 the English never succeeded for long in quashing the evident desire of the Irish to be free and to fight for that freedom. The fact that Ireland is free, despite cultural and political oppression over the centuries is testament to that.
I am assuming that you do not mean intentionally to be an apologist for genocide or a denier of genocide but your views will be interpreted by others in that manner.
I am playing the game you initiated. I am not a detractor nor apologist for anything. I merely state what I believe on balance to have been likely. A massive explosion killing much of the nobility and some of royalty and say half our MPs> The shock and anger would be enormous. The vindictive retribution beyond your apparent imagination. Parliament would wish to secure itself and the realm forever against the Papist Threat and would call for a militia to suppress Ireland. The response would be overwhelming especially with the offer of lands and titles. The outcome would have been swift bloody and absolute. Its not a game. Look at what actually happened in 1641 and afterward. Nothing that happened ever suggests that bloodshed on the scale you have imagined would have been the result. Indeed nothing on that scale in English had happened since the St. Brice's Day massacre of 1002 and there had been plenty of opportunities over the centuries. Even Cromwell at his most ruthless did not sack every city in Ireland. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 3, 2016 0:11:03 GMT
I am playing the game you initiated. I am not a detractor nor apologist for anything. I merely state what I believe on balance to have been likely. A massive explosion killing much of the nobility and some of royalty and say half our MPs> The shock and anger would be enormous. The vindictive retribution beyond your apparent imagination. Parliament would wish to secure itself and the realm forever against the Papist Threat and would call for a militia to suppress Ireland. The response would be overwhelming especially with the offer of lands and titles. The outcome would have been swift bloody and absolute. Its not a game. Look at what actually happened in 1641 and afterward. Nothing that happened ever suggests that bloodshed on the scale you have imagined would have been the result. Indeed nothing on that scale in English had happened since the St. Brice's Day massacre of 1002 and there had been plenty of opportunities over the centuries. Even Cromwell at his most ruthless did not sack every city in Ireland. 'What If' is a game and no mistake. My guesses and projections are as good as yours and probably better. What you overlook here completely is context. This is not positional play, power politics and simple anti-Papism; it is naked fear coupled with retributive blood lust. We have taken a massive hit and are up for a marker of complete retaliation to ensure nothing like it can happen again. We need the security of total security on every island in the British Isles. this would be total war and there would be no prisoners. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2016 5:43:05 GMT
Its not a game. Look at what actually happened in 1641 and afterward. Nothing that happened ever suggests that bloodshed on the scale you have imagined would have been the result. Indeed nothing on that scale in English had happened since the St. Brice's Day massacre of 1002 and there had been plenty of opportunities over the centuries. Even Cromwell at his most ruthless did not sack every city in Ireland. 'What If' is a game and no mistake. My guesses and projections are as good as yours and probably better. What you overlook here completely is context. This is not positional play, power politics and simple anti-Papism; it is naked fear coupled with retributive blood lust. We have taken a massive hit and are up for a marker of complete retaliation to ensure nothing like it can happen again. We need the security of total security on every island in the British Isles. this would be total war and there would be no prisoners. Romans often did that but didn't work in the end
"Solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant" - They make a desert and call it peace (Tacitus)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2016 7:29:08 GMT
I feel carlton43 must be right both on the unlikeliness of the gunpowder wiping out the entire establishment and on the likely resilience of that establishment even in the face of a high death toll, which I feel would merely fuel the reaction. I really don't see how a fairly small number of Catholic peers and gentry could have overcome quite large puritan communities such as in the City of London, which were to heavily back Parliament a generation or so later. Of course there was a Catholic rising in Ireland under the Catholic Confederates, but it is going too far to say that they had control of Ireland until Cromwell put then down. There were effective fight-backs both from Scottish settlers and from the Anglo-Irish establishment. The relative success of the Confederates was partly due to division between the Protestant into Scots (at war with England since the Bishops War) Royalists and Parliamentarians - there is no such division in the scenario we're considering. Part of Cromwell's need to go to Ireland was due to the alliance between the Catholic Confederates and their previous Royalist (but largely Protestant) opponents, rather than an outright Catholic victory as such. But even before he got there the Protestants in Ireland had inflicted defeats on the Confederates, as some Royalist commanders had joined the Parliamentarians rather than align with Catholics against Cromwell. @odo 's point about Spanish intervention makes sense; (not French, I think, I don't think it would have been in French interests to undermine the English crown given the mutual antipathy to Spain, which was the bigger power at the time. And the king of France at the time was Henri IV, a Protestant until he decided that "Paris is worth a mass" so unlikely to have acted out of sympathy for Catholicism. He was after all the intended victim of St Bartholomew's Day, and the ultra-Catholics got him in the end.) But the size of the intervention would have been key; they did intervene a few years before the Plot and were decisively defeated at Kinsale in1601. I could see Ireland going either way, but I feel the balance is against a Catholic victory and for a horrible retaliatory massacre. I do think it is interesting to speculate what sort of government would have followed in an independent Catholic Ireland - perhaps a sort of rural Catholic United Provinces, with the O'Neills filling the role of the Princes of Orange? I doubt very much the resilience of which you speak re the English nobility. The devastating effect of Parliament's destruction would have taken years not months to respond to effectively whilst a new generation of leaders arose. In the meantime Ireland would have had a breathing space to repel any genocidal moves (those which carlton43 takes such delight in envisaging). As Odo points out the likely foreign intervention would have made such a re-conquest even more difficult. I don't think a France under Henry IV would have had the strength or the will to prevent Spanish intervention, particularly as it had only been a couple of years since Henry had managed to put an end to the wars of religion in France with the Edict of Nantes. Henry would not wanted to have jeopardised the stability of France with yet more wars. I agree however with the point you make about the O'Neill filling the role of head of state, particularly because their departure from Ireland was relatively recent. So though in England the Plotters may well have had temporary success it would given Ireland its best chance since 1171 to secure its freedom. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 3, 2016 10:26:12 GMT
'What If' is a game and no mistake. My guesses and projections are as good as yours and probably better. What you overlook here completely is context. This is not positional play, power politics and simple anti-Papism; it is naked fear coupled with retributive blood lust. We have taken a massive hit and are up for a marker of complete retaliation to ensure nothing like it can happen again. We need the security of total security on every island in the British Isles. this would be total war and there would be no prisoners. Romans often did that but didn't work in the end
"Solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant" - They make a desert and call it peace (Tacitus)
On the contrary it worked most effectively for the Romans virtually everywhere they felt the need to deploy it. Tacitus was against it rather than commenting on it not being effective. He was part of that liberal and 'modern' trend that led to their undoing just as it did with the British Empire. |
|
