The 17th Century: What nation would you have fought for?

Users who are viewing this thread

FrisianDude said:
Which went from one hereditary oppressor to a power-seizing oppressor. I can see how that's much better.
He did become unbalanced, especially after the death of his daughter and a long and devastating illness.
Like I said, I do not support actions taken by Cromwell after the war, just the grievances against an imbecile king.
The Invasion of the Dutch king and the sense he showed by upholding the freedoms originally won by the Parliamentary forces was one of the greater outcomes of the period


 
Which were then completely overturned by his later actions.

Poe's Law I know but you could say the same about Hitler.
 
Again, he has been noted to have had a long bout of illness, stretching before the Civil war, including hallucinations etc.
It would explain the irrationality of his later behaviour.
 
Oh great, a MAD violent oppressor rather than a silly hereditary one. I can see the King being Catholic must really be a deciding factor.
 
Well, they were exterminating thousands of people at the time.  :roll:

Though I will admit, my own bias against the church my be affecting my discourse here, mainly steming the genocide of Jews performed by the Papal inquisition, which still has an office within the church, and my own experiences in a Catholic school.
 
Wat. St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, you mean? Roughly seventy years prior? Which the Stuart King had had no hand in or influence over whatsoever? You can hardly want to kill someone just because people with the same religion as them did something nasty.
 
Sir Hitson Winsler said:
He also did a good job of relighting the **** in Ireland.
It was already decidedly lit when he arrived. All the butchery of Drogheda and Waterford, the forced deportations, and the harsh meassures against the Tories did was put a bloody stamp on a century of violence. I'd stake my right bollock that there'd have been similar outcomes irrespective of the victor. Charles was sufficiently slimy to turn on his Confederate allies once he'd won in England and shrugged off the Covenant. Scots presbytery was arguably set more firmly against the influence of Rome than any English sect at the time. And had the Presbyterians successfully disbanded the army in the interbellum they'd surely have rounded on the emerald isle sooner or later. I'd argue the only beneficial outcome for the Catholic Irish would've been the success of the Leveller mutiny and the complete severrance of the three kingdoms, though that was never likely.

FrisianDude said:
What righteous movement? What? Baloney. Make friends? How is that bad? Them being Catholic? Oh noo, they're exactly the same as protestants except less sour. All Cromwell did was exacerbate civil strife, plunge his country into a civil war, violently disperse Parliament and execute the king. Of course the king was an *******, but so was Cromwell.
Whilst I disagree with Kobrag's stance on contemporary Catholicism and his general lionisation of the Lord Protector, I'm broadly with him on other things.

Laying all those accusations at Cromwell's feet.. just no. He no more caused the wars or exacerbated civil strife than any other member of parliament or prominent officer on either side. Sure he was a noted firebrand in the Commons, though his party was packed to the brim with them. Following the First Civil War he was more often than not a much needed go-between for the army and parliament; had it not been for him there'd likely have been an extra war fought over army pay, with parts of the New Model fighting their former comrades for the king and a full purse. As for that man of blood, Oliver was cautiously against his execution and the institution of a republic right up to the end. Cynically hedging his bets, more likely than not. Even so, that was the doing of several other army grandees and the Independents' front bench (such as it were) in Westminster. He only rounded on the monarchy when Charles turned down Lord Denbigh's offer of mediation. Dispersal of Parliament's fair enough. He did order it on multiple occasions: On constitutional grounds, for the empowerment of his own party, and in response to pressure from the Major-Generals. All quite understandable in context.
 
Dem Hats

Armenian-janissary.jpg

 
Kobrag said:
Which one? They were kinda fighting over religion at the time...

If people would like to read about this and be entertained at the same time, I recommend the 1632 series by Eric Flint - it will inspire you to find out more.
 
Horrible, horrible wank fantasy. I barely made it to the end of the first book. Hard to understand why he's so popular but then again, Twilight sold millions, so...
 
Back
Top Bottom