5 ms·

Historically the Peasant's Revolt, the civil war, and the Glorious Revolution of 1688 probably all count. So does the American Revolution, because the American

Historically the Peasant's Revolt, the civil war, and the Glorious Revolution of 1688 probably all count. So does the American Revolution, because the American colonies were part of Britain until they revolted and became independent. And what about the 1857 Indian mutiny, which replaced Company rule in India with direct government rule? In the 20th century, the collapse of the British empire involved revolutions in Malaya, Kenya, and arguably also in India to some extent (e.g. the Indian Navy mutiny). Consider that the British empire controlled about 25% of the population of the planet 100 years ago, and now the UK is a small country of ~67 million people. People who are looking for revolutions often need to look outside the physical geography of the British Isles to find them, but they are definitely there, they happened in parts of the world that were controlled by Britain and were considered part of Britain at the time, and they all had a huge impact on Britain.

369548684892826 5y ago
> the American colonies were part of Britain This doesn't sound right because Britain is the name of the island. The American colonies were part of the British Empire I guess.
- helsinkiandrew 5y ago
  To be pedantic the country was called the Kingdom of Great Britain from 1707 to 1801. And the American colonies were part of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Great_Britain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Great_Britain
  - twic 5y ago
    Were they? I thought they were separate entities under the same crown. The way that the Channel Islands and Isle of Man are not part of the UK today. They had their own legislatures, and their own bodies of law, separate from that made by Westminster.
    - helsinkiandrew 5y ago
      Wasn't there some big hooha about "no taxation without representation"? Channel Islands and Isle of Man are just about completely independent from the UK apart from their external relations/defence - own laws/taxes etc. and no tax is paid to/from the UK.
- samsari 5y ago
  The name of the island is, in fact, "Great Britain". "Britain" is a very widely understood name for the country more formally known as "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
fragmede 5y ago
How about the Managa Carta in 1215?
fanf2 5y ago
Don’t forget that Ireland was part of the UK until their revolution 100 years ago, though the British tended to treat it as a colony rather than one of the home nations.
woodpanel 5y ago
To be fair, I think the question is asked for whether today's cultural/national entity of Britain ever had a revolutionary monent. Not societies that were ruled by the British. Those distinctions can become vague in the case of the American Revolution, I agree.
pjc50 5y ago
Yeah, I think it's safe to limit it to the popular conception: there has never been a "popular" or "workers" revolution, no decisive break with the past that enforces a modern-style explicitly written constitution, that affected mainland Britain. Outside that there have been revolutions, in the Empire and especially in Ireland - once a key part of the United Kingdom that sent MPs to Westminster! The Civil War and "Glorious Revolution" don't really fit a modern revolutionary politics mode. Fundamentally they're part of the older Reformation politico-religious conflict. Also they were elite-driven rather than popular. The "glorious revolution" was really collusion with allowing the country to be invaded by the Dutch on the condition that they didn't touch the existing power structure. Or at least, not in England. The violence of "King Billy" against Ireland is still celebrated by the Orange Order. You could argue that this has continued to be an issue until the Good Friday Agreement, and that the PIRA campaign was ultimately a successful revolution. Crucially it did win constitutional change - with external guarantors, for the civil and human rights of the Catholic population of Northern Ireland. Mainland UK has been effective at deploying armed forces to prevent any revolutionary moments, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_George_Square https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_George_Square : tanks on the streets of Glasgow.
- the_other 5y ago
  > there has never been a "popular" or "workers" revolution, no decisive break with the past that enforces a modern-style explicitly written constitution, that affected mainland Britain Doesn't Magna Carta count? I know it was lead by "lords" who owned land, and thus might not count as "popular". It's aims certainly had parallels with more modern revolution: power-sharing between state and subjects; legal defence against tyranny etc (Perhaps it's mentioned in the OP. I didn't read it 'cos HN comments draw me in first)
  - throwoutway 5y ago
    I would argue Magna Carta does indeed count, despite it being by Lords. It had very lasting impacts, despite the original Magna Carta not being respected by King John. If you look at monarchy rule after that, it was forever changed and practically in decline
lkrubner 5y ago
Also, Ireland. Nominally 1916, though in some sense it lasted forever.
- hardlianotion 5y ago
  Oh come, we don’t know that yet
Balero 5y ago
Really nice post, thanks for brining the idea that the revolution doesn't necessarily have to have happened in what we now consider to be that entity. It's often a challenge to put aside our modern biases when looking back, and it really help appreciate how different the past was. In the mid 1800's there was a period of "quiet revolution" with a number of reform bills, and less quiet riots. Before 1832 a very small number of people, just the upper class were part of the democratic system. After 1884 almost all men over 21 were allowed to vote. A number of other electoral weirdness was removed. This period had a similar effect on a persons rights to the big revolution in France, whilst maintaining the power structure. I guess if you move with the times and give up some power, you can keep on top still. I would also argue (pedantically perhaps) about calling a 67 million population country small, this is the 21st most populous country in the world out of 235, so in the top 10% of countries by size (almost 1% of world population). Calling this small doesn't really leave anywhere to go for smaller countries. I would suggest having Huge (1Bn+), Large (1Bn - 100mil), Medium (100mil-10mil), Small (10mil - 1mil), Tiny (less than 1mil).

369548684892826 5y ago

> the American colonies were part of Britain This doesn't sound right because Britain is the name of the island. The American colonies were part of the British Empire I guess.

helsinkiandrew 5y ago
To be pedantic the country was called the Kingdom of Great Britain from 1707 to 1801. And the American colonies were part of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Great_Britain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Great_Britain
- twic 5y ago
  Were they? I thought they were separate entities under the same crown. The way that the Channel Islands and Isle of Man are not part of the UK today. They had their own legislatures, and their own bodies of law, separate from that made by Westminster.
  - helsinkiandrew 5y ago
    Wasn't there some big hooha about "no taxation without representation"? Channel Islands and Isle of Man are just about completely independent from the UK apart from their external relations/defence - own laws/taxes etc. and no tax is paid to/from the UK.
samsari 5y ago
The name of the island is, in fact, "Great Britain". "Britain" is a very widely understood name for the country more formally known as "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

fragmede 5y ago

How about the Managa Carta in 1215?

fanf2 5y ago

Don’t forget that Ireland was part of the UK until their revolution 100 years ago, though the British tended to treat it as a colony rather than one of the home nations.

woodpanel 5y ago

To be fair, I think the question is asked for whether today's cultural/national entity of Britain ever had a revolutionary monent. Not societies that were ruled by the British. Those distinctions can become vague in the case of the American Revolution, I agree.

pjc50 5y ago

Yeah, I think it's safe to limit it to the popular conception: there has never been a "popular" or "workers" revolution, no decisive break with the past that enforces a modern-style explicitly written constitution, that affected mainland Britain. Outside that there have been revolutions, in the Empire and especially in Ireland - once a key part of the United Kingdom that sent MPs to Westminster! The Civil War and "Glorious Revolution" don't really fit a modern revolutionary politics mode. Fundamentally they're part of the older Reformation politico-religious conflict. Also they were elite-driven rather than popular. The "glorious revolution" was really collusion with allowing the country to be invaded by the Dutch on the condition that they didn't touch the existing power structure. Or at least, not in England. The violence of "King Billy" against Ireland is still celebrated by the Orange Order. You could argue that this has continued to be an issue until the Good Friday Agreement, and that the PIRA campaign was ultimately a successful revolution. Crucially it did win constitutional change - with external guarantors, for the civil and human rights of the Catholic population of Northern Ireland. Mainland UK has been effective at deploying armed forces to prevent any revolutionary moments, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_George_Square https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_George_Square : tanks on the streets of Glasgow.

the_other 5y ago
> there has never been a "popular" or "workers" revolution, no decisive break with the past that enforces a modern-style explicitly written constitution, that affected mainland Britain Doesn't Magna Carta count? I know it was lead by "lords" who owned land, and thus might not count as "popular". It's aims certainly had parallels with more modern revolution: power-sharing between state and subjects; legal defence against tyranny etc (Perhaps it's mentioned in the OP. I didn't read it 'cos HN comments draw me in first)
- throwoutway 5y ago
  I would argue Magna Carta does indeed count, despite it being by Lords. It had very lasting impacts, despite the original Magna Carta not being respected by King John. If you look at monarchy rule after that, it was forever changed and practically in decline

lkrubner 5y ago

Also, Ireland. Nominally 1916, though in some sense it lasted forever.

hardlianotion 5y ago
Oh come, we don’t know that yet

Balero 5y ago

Really nice post, thanks for brining the idea that the revolution doesn't necessarily have to have happened in what we now consider to be that entity. It's often a challenge to put aside our modern biases when looking back, and it really help appreciate how different the past was. In the mid 1800's there was a period of "quiet revolution" with a number of reform bills, and less quiet riots. Before 1832 a very small number of people, just the upper class were part of the democratic system. After 1884 almost all men over 21 were allowed to vote. A number of other electoral weirdness was removed. This period had a similar effect on a persons rights to the big revolution in France, whilst maintaining the power structure. I guess if you move with the times and give up some power, you can keep on top still. I would also argue (pedantically perhaps) about calling a 67 million population country small, this is the 21st most populous country in the world out of 235, so in the top 10% of countries by size (almost 1% of world population). Calling this small doesn't really leave anywhere to go for smaller countries. I would suggest having Huge (1Bn+), Large (1Bn - 100mil), Medium (100mil-10mil), Small (10mil - 1mil), Tiny (less than 1mil).