Two counter factual questions: How different would history be if...

[Zorral]

53 minutes ago, maarsen said:

The French were much more inclined to keep the indigenous people as a nation to be dealt with as equals and converted to Catholicism than they were in expansion. 

Let me fix this for you: the French and the English rulers were interested in keeping the white settlements constrained to the coast to protect the extremely lucrative fur and hide trade, not to convert Native Americans.  As we have seen, that didn't work out at all.

Already, even before the French and English War, another world war that kicked the French definitively out of India (French and Indian wars here -- you can guess the reason it was called the French and Indian war here), the English settlers had hollowed out what would become the Cotton Kingdom of its Native tribes, killing them and selling them into slavery, mostly to the Caribbean in an exchange that worked to be one African for 7 - 10 Natives.

I think you're right that the hot-faithed protestants would have continued to move to the New World out of England whether the English monarch was Catholic or COE -- because that settlement was massively reduced during the Cromwell interregnum -- to pick up massively again when it was over, if only to put as much distance between Charles II's seeking for justice upon those who killed his father, and those who sided with the regicides and Cromwell.  Whereas, during the interregnum, the Catholics and COE settlement of the southern Atlantic coastal colonies picked up majorly.

But nothing was going to stop the hunger for land -- and production of their own manufactured goods -- among the English no matter what the religion was.  I mean, you realize, of course, that it was prohibited by the Crown to even import molasses from the Caribbean, build distilleries and make rum, right?  (Rhode Island, also the single African slave trading colony back then, ignored this and had many distilleries. How long were the hard drinking 18th century residents of the colonies going to up with that put?????  )

No matter how far one tries to take a single change into the future, it's not going to make any difference, really -- nor is there any point in trying, because it did not happen.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Let me fix this for you: the French and the English rulers were interested in keeping the white settlements constrained to the coast to protect the extremely lucrative fur and hide trade, not to convert Native Americans.  As we have seen, that didn't work out at all.

Already, even before the French and English War, another world war that kicked the French definitively out of India (French and Indian wars here -- you can guess the reason it was called the French and Indian war here), the English settlers had hollowed out what would become the Cotton Kingdom of its Native tribes, killing them and selling them into slavery, mostly to the Caribbean in an exchange that worked to be one African for 7 - 10 Natives.

I think you're right that the hot-faithed protestants would have continued to move to the New World out of England whether the English monarch was Catholic or COE -- because that settlement was massively reduced during the Cromwell interregnum -- to pick up massively again when it was over, if only to put as much distance between Charles II's seeking for justice upon those who killed his father, and those who sided with the regicides and Cromwell.  Whereas, during the interregnum, the Catholics and COE settlement of the southern Atlantic coastal colonies picked up majorly.

But nothing was going to stop the hunger for land -- and production of their own manufactured goods -- among the English no matter what the religion was.  I mean, you realize, of course, that it was prohibited by the Crown to even import molasses from the Caribbean, build distilleries and make rum, right?  (Rhode Island, also the single African slave trading colony back then, ignored this and had many distilleries. How long were the hard drinking 18th century residents of the colonies going to up with that put?????  )

No matter how far one tries to take a single change into the future, it's not going to make any difference, really -- nor is there any point in trying, because it did not happen.

I take it you don’t care for the “Many-Worlds” interpretation of Quantum Theory, do you? 

[maarsen]

4 hours ago, Zorral said:

Let me fix this for you: the French and the English rulers were interested in keeping the white settlements constrained to the coast to protect the extremely lucrative fur and hide trade, not to convert Native Americans.  As we have seen, that didn't work out at all.

Already, even before the French and English War, another world war that kicked the French definitively out of India (French and Indian wars here -- you can guess the reason it was called the French and Indian war here), the English settlers had hollowed out what would become the Cotton Kingdom of its Native tribes, killing them and selling them into slavery, mostly to the Caribbean in an exchange that worked to be one African for 7 - 10 Natives.

I think you're right that the hot-faithed protestants would have continued to move to the New World out of England whether the English monarch was Catholic or COE -- because that settlement was massively reduced during the Cromwell interregnum -- to pick up massively again when it was over, if only to put as much distance between Charles II's seeking for justice upon those who killed his father, and those who sided with the regicides and Cromwell.  Whereas, during the interregnum, the Catholics and COE settlement of the southern Atlantic coastal colonies picked up majorly.

But nothing was going to stop the hunger for land -- and production of their own manufactured goods -- among the English no matter what the religion was.  I mean, you realize, of course, that it was prohibited by the Crown to even import molasses from the Caribbean, build distilleries and make rum, right?  (Rhode Island, also the single African slave trading colony back then, ignored this and had many distilleries. How long were the hard drinking 18th century residents of the colonies going to up with that put?????  )

No matter how far one tries to take a single change into the future, it's not going to make any difference, really -- nor is there any point in trying, because it did not happen.

The French did not allow their citizens to travel into the interior unless they were spreading religion. Check out Sainte Marie Amongst the Hurons and the Jesuit martyrs. The courer de boi did go in to the interior but not with the assent of the governer of New France and faced penalties if caught. Considering that most of the continent was controlled by Spain and France, Catholic English people would be thin on the ground. 

[Zorral]

14 minutes ago, maarsen said:

The French did not allow their citizens to travel into the interior unless they were spreading religion. Check out Sainte Marie Amongst the Hurons and the Jesuit martyrs. The courer de boi did go in to the interior but not with the assent of the governer of New France and faced penalties if caught. Considering that most of the continent was controlled by Spain and France, Catholic English people would be thin on the ground. 

Not much enforcement, considering how much the courer de boi traveled throughout North America, including my own state, where they were the first 'white' people. Spreading religion was not their remit either.  Check out the history of fur companies such as the Hudson Bay company which had far more control over Canada than every the French crown or government ever did. Nor did it last when finally that interior could be figured out how to support farming. This is particularly significant since this was the great migration and travel  and trade routes for the Natives from all the way at the top of Canada down to the Gulf, used for at least a thousand years.  They were all cut off from each other now -- those that remained anyway.

How long did that italicized last? The Americans got rid of both the French and the Spanish forts and any control of the Mississippi Valley by about 1820 at the latest. Despite the deals made by the Americans for the Spanish help with independence -- which was substantial, though most people know little to nothing about that. That whole circuit, which was completed by the Ibervilles, from the St. Lawrence what became New Orleans became the US by 1803. And in-between, the Gulf was Spanish, not French.

Have no idea what you're getting at with the bolded.

 

 

 

[maarsen]

If England's monarch had remained Catholic, the Pope would have much more sway in influencing English settlements as was done in dividing the New World into Spanish and Portugese sections. 

[Zorral]

England wasn't going to stay Catholic whether or not Henry VIII hadn't left the Church or not. See how the protestant movement breaks geographically.  England was part of that, not the Mediterranean southern Europe of the former Roman Empire, the part of Europe that had been the most deeply latinized and for the longest era -- including language -- so much so that not even the non-latin speaking Merovingians could change that in France.

[Stego]

You guys know these "Let's imagine Alternate History" hypotheticals are subterfuge, right?

Scot just wants us to get into "What if the South Won" talk so he can strip down to his confederate flag knickers and oil himself up.

 

 

"OH, BOBBY LEE!! I DO DECLARE!

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 hours ago, Stego said:

You guys know these "Let's imagine Alternate History" hypotheticals are subterfuge, right?

Scot just wants us to get into "What if the South Won" talk so he can strip down to his confederate flag knickers and oil himself up.

 

 

"OH, BOBBY LEE!! I DO DECLARE!

Nope.

[sologdin]

no divorce crisis means no dissolution acts, which means no abortive second invasion of france, which means no equation of extraordinary financial measures with imperial expansion, which means no racist backlash against movement of persons from the imperial periphery to the imperial center combined with no poverty in the imperial center caused by the costs of imperialism being borne by persons other than imperialism's beneficiaries, which means no brexit?

[Leofric]

Totally off topic, but the phrasing of your question in the title "How different would history be if.."  I somehow heard to the same cadence as " How wonderful life is while you're ..." and now Elton John's 'Your Song' has been floating in my head for the last two days. 

 

[Zorral]

7 hours ago, sologdin said:

no divorce crisis means no dissolution acts, which means no abortive second invasion of france, which means no equation of extraordinary financial measures with imperial expansion, which means no racist backlash against movement of persons from the imperial periphery to the imperial center combined with no poverty in the imperial center caused by the costs of imperialism being borne by persons other than imperialism's beneficiaries, which means no brexit?

I am not convinced. Because Henry was broke.  Really broke.  He more than anyone in the kingdom benefited from the Dissolution.  A huge percentage of everything went to his privy purse.  That's how you played if you wanted to stay safe with and from the King's wrath.  And as said before, the pressure of protestantism in Britain was already very great (see what happened when his Catholic daughter took over), and the 8th ended up inheriting 7's deep paranoia and hostility to the Church and covetousness of both the Church's property and power -- as well as a resentment of the Empire and the Spanish.  Shoot, large parts of the Empire felt the same way, which is why Martin Luther was able to survive and lead.

At one point waking last night it occurred to me that the biggest benefit from Henry 8th's death was the final arrow in the albatross around the necks of the English people of the endless British monarchy's dream to take back much of France, if not the entire crown.  The possibility to do so ended with the death of Edward VIII -- he and his son had the most success at this English dream, but not even they were able to succeed in the end, because the French people didn't want them.  Plus this 100 Years War had further left them ravaged over and over by the thugs Free Companies (England also suffered from this in Edward III's time by pillaging barons, but not to the extent as France did). And by the time they failed, they'd so oppressed, raped, killed and pillaged the people of France there were not friends for them -- as Henry 8 learned in his abortive attempts.  Sheesh, his daughter Mary -- a Catholic -- lost Calais! That was the final invasion of France by England, I think.

By Elizabeth I's time the struggle moved largely to the sea, and particularly the Caribbean, providing a great alternative outlet for the many unemployed mercenaries and soldiers as pirates privateeers.  This also helped fill the coffers of the monarchs.

Though Europe kept a-boil so many of its medieval quarrels and conflicts as between the Empire and France and Spain, the center of gravity had shifted from the Mediterranean to the New World.  Even Cromwell tried to be a force there ( except for Barbados, failed massively -- not enough money, and certainly not ships or material to support -- and Barbadians moved with their slaves and attitude to South Carolina). No matter who was monarch or what religion was practiced, that shift in mercantile focus was going to happen.

[The Marquis de Leech]

On 10/29/2019 at 11:19 AM, Zorral said:

England wasn't going to stay Catholic whether or not Henry VIII hadn't left the Church or not. See how the protestant movement breaks geographically.  England was part of that, not the Mediterranean southern Europe of the former Roman Empire, the part of Europe that had been the most deeply latinized and for the longest era -- including language -- so much so that not even the non-latin speaking Merovingians could change that in France.

For a start, Ireland wants a word.

More seriously, the Reformation in England was a completely top-down affair. Sure, various merchants and educated types might be swayed to Protestantism, but without the pressure coming from the state, nothing changes. Mary I enjoyed wide popular support, while it was only with the long reign of Elizabeth (and associated anti-Catholic scares) that Protestantism became embedded in England.

[A wilding]

Up to a point I think.

There was a substantial middle class Protestant minority in England by the time Henry kicked off the Reformation. Henry's Church, while it wobbled somewhat depending on which ministers were in at the time, was still very high, not far off Catholicism minus the Pope, and yet there was a lot of pressure from people who wanted to change it into something closer to Lutheran.

Mary's rule was complicated by the fact that the previous reign of Edward VI had been strongly Protestant. But her popularity was at least partly based on her being the rightful queen, and so supported by those for whom religion was less crucial. Even so, she had to execute a large number of Protestants in her brief reign.

As for Elizabeth, she set up the relatively high Church of England very quickly, almost as a fait accompli, when she came to power, largely to outmanoeuvre the large faction of extreme Protestants, who wanted something much lower and closer to Calvinism.

My general impression of the period is that there was a very committed Protestant minority, plus a large majority who didn't care very much, but relatively few staunch Catholics.

 

[Zorral]

3 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

For a start, Ireland wants a word.

More seriously, the Reformation in England was a completely top-down affair. Sure, various merchants and educated types might be swayed to Protestantism, but without the pressure coming from the state, nothing changes. Mary I enjoyed wide popular support, while it was only with the long reign of Elizabeth (and associated anti-Catholic scares) that Protestantism became embedded in England.

I said England.  Then there's Scotland -- a more fiery protestant country one wasn't going to find in the 16th - 17th centuries.

 Ireland's history with the Church is very different -- see the terrible 7th century, when Ireland was where so much of early Christianity was preserved and the monks came to minister to Mediterranean Europe during the endless waves of wars, famine and plagues.

As far as top down, don't think so. The history of the Puritans, etc. show quite something else.  If anything it was among the educated middle-class that protestant and anti-Roman sentiment was the strongest.

 

[The Marquis de Leech]

6 hours ago, Zorral said:

I said England.  Then there's Scotland -- a more fiery protestant country one wasn't going to find in the 16th - 17th centuries.

 Ireland's history with the Church is very different -- see the terrible 7th century, when Ireland was where so much of early Christianity was preserved and the monks came to minister to Mediterranean Europe during the endless waves of wars, famine and plagues.

As far as top down, don't think so. The history of the Puritans, etc. show quite something else.  If anything it was among the educated middle-class that protestant and anti-Roman sentiment was the strongest.

• You were presenting the Protestant/Catholic split as a matter of geography. I mentioned Ireland because it does not fit that model.
• England staying Catholic might well strangle the Scottish Reformation in its cradle - a Catholic England might well be inclined to send forces north to deal with those naughty Calvinists across the border.
• The educated middle class at this point was small. Most people in England at this point were very rural and very Catholic. Without Henry, Edward, and Elizabeth, the Protestants in England remain a decided minority.

[The Marquis de Leech]

9 hours ago, A wilding said:

Up to a point I think.

There was a substantial middle class Protestant minority in England by the time Henry kicked off the Reformation. Henry's Church, while it wobbled somewhat depending on which ministers were in at the time, was still very high, not far off Catholicism minus the Pope, and yet there was a lot of pressure from people who wanted to change it into something closer to Lutheran.

Mary's rule was complicated by the fact that the previous reign of Edward VI had been strongly Protestant. But her popularity was at least partly based on her being the rightful queen, and so supported by those for whom religion was less crucial. Even so, she had to execute a large number of Protestants in her brief reign.

As for Elizabeth, she set up the relatively high Church of England very quickly, almost as a fait accompli, when she came to power, largely to outmanoeuvre the large faction of extreme Protestants, who wanted something much lower and closer to Calvinism.

My general impression of the period is that there was a very committed Protestant minority, plus a large majority who didn't care very much, but relatively few staunch Catholics.

Oh, I'm not disputing that there were English Protestants running around in substantial numbers. I'm just pointing out that without state-led encouragement, they would have remained very much a minority.