by The Parkus Empire » Sun Jul 08, 2018 10:12 pm
by Chan Island » Sun Jul 08, 2018 10:34 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:"It's not time yet" is a tactic used by reactionaries in every era. "It's not time for democracy, it's not time for capitalism, it's not time for emancipation." Of course it's not time. It's never time, not on its own. You make it time. If you're under fire in the no-man's land of WW1, you start digging a foxhole even if the ideal time would be when you *aren't* being bombarded, because once you wait for it to be 'time', other situations will need your attention, assuming you survive that long. If the fields aren't furrowed, plow them. If the iron is not hot, make it so. If society is not ready, change it.
by The Parkus Empire » Sun Jul 08, 2018 10:48 pm
Chan Island wrote:The way Britain would remember the Protestant era would probably be similar to how Czechs remember the Hussites. "Hey, remember that time we overthrew the Pope and did our own thing for a while? That was totally rad."
As for the listed predictions, I think that England would not have intervened to save the French king because the 2 were still ancient rivals no matter the religious affiliations. There is no reason to think that a smart Catholic king of England would have changed the international relations all that much honestly, both because of the hassle involved (for example, the Dutch and the English had more reasons than just religion to be allied) with that and because there would still be many Protestants left in England after ~150 years of Anglicanism.
Mind you, if the scenario is that the French massively helped the restoration as you put it, then obviously the dynamic changes, but again I don't think the International relations aspect would have changed as much as you think. This first monarch would be focussing on keeping their dangerously weak grasp on the throne virtually all of the time.
I think you're right about Ireland, India and America. Scotland would likely become the new Ireland in this case, as Scotland is a place that was heavily Presbyterian, who are a tad more extremist than Anglicans. Heavily pushing conversion in India would likely make British rule much shorter too (or, at best, make it have a very different flavour), considering that it was always being done by proxies and relatively small numbers of troops.
by Kubra » Sun Jul 08, 2018 10:56 pm
by Chan Island » Sun Jul 08, 2018 11:19 pm
Kubra wrote:Literally no one was in a position to put down the french revolution by the time of conscription.
The Parkus Empire wrote:Chan Island wrote:The way Britain would remember the Protestant era would probably be similar to how Czechs remember the Hussites. "Hey, remember that time we overthrew the Pope and did our own thing for a while? That was totally rad."
As for the listed predictions, I think that England would not have intervened to save the French king because the 2 were still ancient rivals no matter the religious affiliations. There is no reason to think that a smart Catholic king of England would have changed the international relations all that much honestly, both because of the hassle involved (for example, the Dutch and the English had more reasons than just religion to be allied) with that and because there would still be many Protestants left in England after ~150 years of Anglicanism.
Mind you, if the scenario is that the French massively helped the restoration as you put it, then obviously the dynamic changes, but again I don't think the International relations aspect would have changed as much as you think. This first monarch would be focussing on keeping their dangerously weak grasp on the throne virtually all of the time.
I think you're right about Ireland, India and America. Scotland would likely become the new Ireland in this case, as Scotland is a place that was heavily Presbyterian, who are a tad more extremist than Anglicans. Heavily pushing conversion in India would likely make British rule much shorter too (or, at best, make it have a very different flavour), considering that it was always being done by proxies and relatively small numbers of troops.
The King of France offered to restore James II, and in this scenario he did. So imagine the favor would be returned here. Even a Protestant King, George III, was not happy about the French Revolution at all.
James II went on a sacking rampage, that's what caused the Glorious Revolution to begin with, so I think a lot would change.
Scotland had a lot of Presbyterians but also plenty of Jacobites
Conserative Morality wrote:"It's not time yet" is a tactic used by reactionaries in every era. "It's not time for democracy, it's not time for capitalism, it's not time for emancipation." Of course it's not time. It's never time, not on its own. You make it time. If you're under fire in the no-man's land of WW1, you start digging a foxhole even if the ideal time would be when you *aren't* being bombarded, because once you wait for it to be 'time', other situations will need your attention, assuming you survive that long. If the fields aren't furrowed, plow them. If the iron is not hot, make it so. If society is not ready, change it.
by Ostroeuropa » Sun Jul 08, 2018 11:41 pm
by Kubra » Sun Jul 08, 2018 11:43 pm
More or less. The monarchies had to liberalise and reform in some of the ways as the french in order to actually fight the french, and even then it took the expedition to Russia to put them properly on the offensive.Chan Island wrote:Kubra wrote:Literally no one was in a position to put down the french revolution by the time of conscription.
If memory serves, the entirety of Europe was caught off-guard by the revolution. A Catholic king of England would likely have been caught off guard and been unable to stop it just like everyone else.
by Kubra » Sun Jul 08, 2018 11:45 pm
lol and their hatred of the british army also explained their love of the navy: the latter, in a sense, paid for itself.Ostroeuropa wrote:It would have stalled the inevitable for at most one generation. It's less about religion and more about financial interests. The catholics kept pushing absolute monarchism so naturally moneyed persons and lords tended to protestantism except in nations where catholicism benefited them more (Feudal societies rather than mercantile and industrializing ones). Oh sure you've got a scattering of true believers, but the bulk? Interests.
A British monarch can't justify a standing army to defend the realm, and that naturally puts them at odds with the moneyed persons in the realm when they wish to raise taxes, and that leads to parliament and eventual conflict between parliament and king over sovereignty.
The stuff about protestantism causing better economics isn't luck, it's because people with an active interest in economics formed the elite of the protestant reformation and they decided which protestantisms got adopted, whereas feudalists and people interested in feudalism and stasis were catholics.
by Ostroeuropa » Sun Jul 08, 2018 11:45 pm
Kubra wrote:lol and their hatred of the british army also explained their love of the navy: the latter, in a sense, paid for itself.Ostroeuropa wrote:It would have stalled the inevitable for at most one generation. It's less about religion and more about financial interests. The catholics kept pushing absolute monarchism so naturally moneyed persons and lords tended to protestantism except in nations where catholicism benefited them more (Feudal societies rather than mercantile and industrializing ones). Oh sure you've got a scattering of true believers, but the bulk? Interests.
A British monarch can't justify a standing army to defend the realm, and that naturally puts them at odds with the moneyed persons in the realm when they wish to raise taxes, and that leads to parliament and eventual conflict between parliament and king over sovereignty.
The stuff about protestantism causing better economics isn't luck, it's because people with an active interest in economics formed the elite of the protestant reformation and they decided which protestantisms got adopted, whereas feudalists and people interested in feudalism and stasis were catholics.
by The Empire of Pretantia » Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:10 am
The Parkus Empire wrote:Chan Island wrote:The way Britain would remember the Protestant era would probably be similar to how Czechs remember the Hussites. "Hey, remember that time we overthrew the Pope and did our own thing for a while? That was totally rad."
As for the listed predictions, I think that England would not have intervened to save the French king because the 2 were still ancient rivals no matter the religious affiliations. There is no reason to think that a smart Catholic king of England would have changed the international relations all that much honestly, both because of the hassle involved (for example, the Dutch and the English had more reasons than just religion to be allied) with that and because there would still be many Protestants left in England after ~150 years of Anglicanism.
Mind you, if the scenario is that the French massively helped the restoration as you put it, then obviously the dynamic changes, but again I don't think the International relations aspect would have changed as much as you think. This first monarch would be focussing on keeping their dangerously weak grasp on the throne virtually all of the time.
I think you're right about Ireland, India and America. Scotland would likely become the new Ireland in this case, as Scotland is a place that was heavily Presbyterian, who are a tad more extremist than Anglicans. Heavily pushing conversion in India would likely make British rule much shorter too (or, at best, make it have a very different flavour), considering that it was always being done by proxies and relatively small numbers of troops.
The King of France offered to restore James II, and in this scenario he did. So imagine the favor would be returned here.
Even a Protestant King, George III, was not happy about the French Revolution at all.
by Platypus Bureaucracy » Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:11 am
by Tybra » Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:48 am
by The Parkus Empire » Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:50 am
Platypus Bureaucracy wrote:"Hey, guys, what if one thing went differently and then all my political fantasies somehow panned out because of that?"
by Sovaal » Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:42 am
by The Parkus Empire » Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:50 am
Sovaal wrote:>Puritan Republic
Ew.
I mean I guess it’s possible. As for the intervention of the British in the Grench Rvoultuon, last I checked two monarchs being Catholic never really seemed to mean much.
by The Parkus Empire » Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:53 am
The Empire of Pretantia wrote:The Parkus Empire wrote:The King of France offered to restore James II, and in this scenario he did. So imagine the favor would be returned here.
>Insert perfidious Albion here
A favor is no guarantee of a return.Even a Protestant King, George III, was not happy about the French Revolution at all.
Probably because the only thing worse than France is an even more hostile, Republican version of France.
by Farnhamia » Mon Jul 09, 2018 11:37 am
The Parkus Empire wrote:How would things have been different if the Jacobite restoration succeeded? With French help, say.
My opinion: many British Protestants would have come to America and this would have pushed our independence sooner. Our country would have become more religious in government and ultra anti Catholic, perhaps a Puritan republic.
In Britain, the Irish would have become equal in rights and would exert a much greater say on British policy. The king's heir would been certainly Catholic even if he had no issue, as his government would ensure the line of succession became Papist.
The French Revolution would have triggered a British intervention, preventing the end of Louis XVI's reign
Britain would push heavily for Catholic conversion in India, leading a very different religious makeup for the country.
by Salus Maior » Mon Jul 09, 2018 1:02 pm
The Parkus Empire wrote:Chan Island wrote:The way Britain would remember the Protestant era would probably be similar to how Czechs remember the Hussites. "Hey, remember that time we overthrew the Pope and did our own thing for a while? That was totally rad."
As for the listed predictions, I think that England would not have intervened to save the French king because the 2 were still ancient rivals no matter the religious affiliations. There is no reason to think that a smart Catholic king of England would have changed the international relations all that much honestly, both because of the hassle involved (for example, the Dutch and the English had more reasons than just religion to be allied) with that and because there would still be many Protestants left in England after ~150 years of Anglicanism.
Mind you, if the scenario is that the French massively helped the restoration as you put it, then obviously the dynamic changes, but again I don't think the International relations aspect would have changed as much as you think. This first monarch would be focussing on keeping their dangerously weak grasp on the throne virtually all of the time.
I think you're right about Ireland, India and America. Scotland would likely become the new Ireland in this case, as Scotland is a place that was heavily Presbyterian, who are a tad more extremist than Anglicans. Heavily pushing conversion in India would likely make British rule much shorter too (or, at best, make it have a very different flavour), considering that it was always being done by proxies and relatively small numbers of troops.
The King of France offered to restore James II, and in this scenario he did. So imagine the favor would be returned here. Even a Protestant King, George III, was not happy about the French Revolution at all.
James II went on a sacking rampage, that's what caused the Glorious Revolution to begin with, so I think a lot would change.
Scotland had a lot of Presbyterians but also plenty of Jacobites
by The South Falls » Mon Jul 09, 2018 1:21 pm
by The Parkus Empire » Mon Jul 09, 2018 1:23 pm
The South Falls wrote:I'd most likely think that with more British settlers, there would be a faster revolution, but more overcrowding and a lack of services.
by Dogmeat » Mon Jul 09, 2018 1:41 pm
The Parkus Empire wrote:Britain would push heavily for Catholic conversion in India, leading a very different religious makeup for the country.
by Sovaal » Mon Jul 09, 2018 5:32 pm
The South Falls wrote:I'd most likely think that with more British settlers, there would be a faster revolution, but more overcrowding and a lack of services.
by Nanatsu no Tsuki » Mon Jul 09, 2018 5:41 pm
Slava Ukraini
Also: THERNSY!!
Your story isn't over;֍Help save transgender people's lives֍Help for feral cats
Cat with internet access||Supposedly heartless, & a d*ck.||Is maith an t-earra an tsíocháin.||No TGsRIP: Dyakovo & Ashmoria
by The Parkus Empire » Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:30 pm
Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:>TFW someone wishes for a more Puritan government and I can't help but remind them about the Puritan batshit crazy streak of ''witch trials'' in Salem, Massachusetts. Because things were definitely super duper better with religious zealots in power. Yes, Goody Woodland, yes and a good morrow to thee. :^)
by Nanatsu no Tsuki » Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:58 pm
The Parkus Empire wrote:Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:>TFW someone wishes for a more Puritan government and I can't help but remind them about the Puritan batshit crazy streak of ''witch trials'' in Salem, Massachusetts. Because things were definitely super duper better with religious zealots in power. Yes, Goody Woodland, yes and a good morrow to thee. :^)
>thinking someone whose Church is known for ICONS EVERYWHERE, is a Roundhead
Slava Ukraini
Also: THERNSY!!
Your story isn't over;֍Help save transgender people's lives֍Help for feral cats
Cat with internet access||Supposedly heartless, & a d*ck.||Is maith an t-earra an tsíocháin.||No TGsRIP: Dyakovo & Ashmoria
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Bombadil, Emotional Support Crocodile, Ifreann, Socialist Lop, Tepertopia
Advertisement