3 ms·

You are still reading a very Whiggish, anachronistic view of history into what happened. With a corresponding value judgement that Catholic England wasn't worth

You are still reading a very Whiggish, anachronistic view of history into what happened. With a corresponding value judgement that Catholic England wasn't worthy of survival, and that the great achievements of the Glorious Revolution and parliamentary democracy were a given at the time of the break with Rome.

SagelyGuru 12y ago
No, it is you who is reading a Popish view into it. My judgement is based on informed comparison with countries like Spain and Portugal, and Bohemia, which either never attempted such separation or failed in it - and their relative importance compared to the British Empire.
- voidlogic 12y ago
  Either way the British Empire being helped or hindered by Catholicism (or the lack there of) is mostly conjecture. Its like trying to argue if the Romans had abolished slavery they would have landed on the moon in 1462. Without time traveling and alternate histories to explore we will never know.
  - hessenwolf 12y ago
    Exploring the counterfactual allows us to reveal holes in our understanding, by setting up hypotheses and allowing them to be knocked down by argument. And it's fun.
  - SagelyGuru 12y ago
    But it is not a conjecture. The results are plain to see, that is my point. We really did land on the moon. People like Sir Isaac Newton, who by the way refused the holy orders of the Anglican Church too, were nonetheless allowed to pursue their interests without being threatened by the inquisition. That is what laid the foundations. I am surprised and saddened for you, to get -4 votes here of all places. I would have thought that at least some of you may have understood and appreciated the important connection between free thought and scientific and technical progress and the fact that Henry VIII just may have made that possible in Britain. Instead all I get is cheap jibes about "whiggish view" and Mussolini. Sad. And no, it really is not interesting to see regurgitated back the standard TV line that "it was all to do with his gonads". Kings can and do discreetly satisfy their gonads without having to go through difficult public divorces.
    - mercurial 12y ago
      > But it is not a conjecture. The results are plain to see, that is my point. We really did land on the moon. People like Sir Isaac Newton, who by the way refused the holy orders of the Anglican Church too, were nonetheless allowed to pursue their interests without being threatened by the inquisition. That is what laid the foundations. The foundation of what? Is your argument that the success of the British Empire was due to a post-Henri VIII technological superiority over other European powers?
      - SagelyGuru 12y ago
        There were other aspects to it apart from good science, education and technology, all based on liberal thinking but, in a nutshell, yes. What I am saying is that these were the main reasons for the British Empire eclipsing the other European powers. It did not just happen totally by chance in one particular lucky country, out of nothing. If that is a "whiggish view", then I guess I am a whig.
        mercurial 12y ago
        I assume you're talking about the Industrial Revolution, something that came rather late. At the time of Newton, and afterwards, there was no shortage of scientists of renown in catholic countries. But considering the English Reformation as the leading reason for the Industrial Revolution to happen in England and not elsewhere is far from an accepted opinion.
- nl 12y ago
  When talking about the Spanish Empire, I think it's fair to say that few historians lay the blame sorely on the Church. There are so many factors involved it is really impossible to even decide on a single factor as the most important. Spain had huge and unsustainable drains on its treasury caused by it's European wars (and their overflow in the Americas against eg the Dutch) as well as campaigns against the Ottoman Empire and the Barbary pirates, and most would argue that was a huge factor. There is a religious part to some of these conflicts, but they were also about keeping Spanish influence strong in Europe.
- bgilroy26 12y ago
  >Popish You're a buster. http://lajhsslab.com/immigration/cartoon.jpg http://lajhsslab.com/immigration/cartoon.jpg >Bohemia Have you ever heard of Jan Hus?
  - SagelyGuru 12y ago
    Of course I have. Bohemia is an excellent example. From being a powerful and wealthy kingdom to loss of sovereignty and resulting poverty and obscurity thanks chiefly to counter-reformation. Again, I am not talking about this or that religious dogma, as you all are, but about more important things, like being able to pursue its own independent policies and development of thought.
    - bgilroy26 12y ago
      >its own Whose own?
ZanyProgrammer 12y ago
You seem to think that Henry VIII staying married to Catherine of Aragon is but one step removed from Francisco Franco and Mussolini? Now there is some Protestant Anglo centrism! BTW, the Spanish Empire did manage to convert quite a few more people to Catholicism than the British did to their reformed religion.

SagelyGuru 12y ago

No, it is you who is reading a Popish view into it. My judgement is based on informed comparison with countries like Spain and Portugal, and Bohemia, which either never attempted such separation or failed in it - and their relative importance compared to the British Empire.

voidlogic 12y ago
Either way the British Empire being helped or hindered by Catholicism (or the lack there of) is mostly conjecture. Its like trying to argue if the Romans had abolished slavery they would have landed on the moon in 1462. Without time traveling and alternate histories to explore we will never know.
- hessenwolf 12y ago
  Exploring the counterfactual allows us to reveal holes in our understanding, by setting up hypotheses and allowing them to be knocked down by argument. And it's fun.
- SagelyGuru 12y ago
  But it is not a conjecture. The results are plain to see, that is my point. We really did land on the moon. People like Sir Isaac Newton, who by the way refused the holy orders of the Anglican Church too, were nonetheless allowed to pursue their interests without being threatened by the inquisition. That is what laid the foundations. I am surprised and saddened for you, to get -4 votes here of all places. I would have thought that at least some of you may have understood and appreciated the important connection between free thought and scientific and technical progress and the fact that Henry VIII just may have made that possible in Britain. Instead all I get is cheap jibes about "whiggish view" and Mussolini. Sad. And no, it really is not interesting to see regurgitated back the standard TV line that "it was all to do with his gonads". Kings can and do discreetly satisfy their gonads without having to go through difficult public divorces.
  - mercurial 12y ago
    > But it is not a conjecture. The results are plain to see, that is my point. We really did land on the moon. People like Sir Isaac Newton, who by the way refused the holy orders of the Anglican Church too, were nonetheless allowed to pursue their interests without being threatened by the inquisition. That is what laid the foundations. The foundation of what? Is your argument that the success of the British Empire was due to a post-Henri VIII technological superiority over other European powers?
    - SagelyGuru 12y ago
      There were other aspects to it apart from good science, education and technology, all based on liberal thinking but, in a nutshell, yes. What I am saying is that these were the main reasons for the British Empire eclipsing the other European powers. It did not just happen totally by chance in one particular lucky country, out of nothing. If that is a "whiggish view", then I guess I am a whig.
      - mercurial 12y ago
        I assume you're talking about the Industrial Revolution, something that came rather late. At the time of Newton, and afterwards, there was no shortage of scientists of renown in catholic countries. But considering the English Reformation as the leading reason for the Industrial Revolution to happen in England and not elsewhere is far from an accepted opinion.
nl 12y ago
When talking about the Spanish Empire, I think it's fair to say that few historians lay the blame sorely on the Church. There are so many factors involved it is really impossible to even decide on a single factor as the most important. Spain had huge and unsustainable drains on its treasury caused by it's European wars (and their overflow in the Americas against eg the Dutch) as well as campaigns against the Ottoman Empire and the Barbary pirates, and most would argue that was a huge factor. There is a religious part to some of these conflicts, but they were also about keeping Spanish influence strong in Europe.
bgilroy26 12y ago
>Popish You're a buster. http://lajhsslab.com/immigration/cartoon.jpg http://lajhsslab.com/immigration/cartoon.jpg >Bohemia Have you ever heard of Jan Hus?
- SagelyGuru 12y ago
  Of course I have. Bohemia is an excellent example. From being a powerful and wealthy kingdom to loss of sovereignty and resulting poverty and obscurity thanks chiefly to counter-reformation. Again, I am not talking about this or that religious dogma, as you all are, but about more important things, like being able to pursue its own independent policies and development of thought.
  - bgilroy26 12y ago
    >its own Whose own?

ZanyProgrammer 12y ago

You seem to think that Henry VIII staying married to Catherine of Aragon is but one step removed from Francisco Franco and Mussolini? Now there is some Protestant Anglo centrism! BTW, the Spanish Empire did manage to convert quite a few more people to Catholicism than the British did to their reformed religion.