• Attention All Comstar Customers, Due to unexpected interference by suspected Word of Blake operatives, the HPG systems update was *not* successful. No data was lost due to our careful and extensive backups; however, we will need to try again next weekend. Sincerely, Comstar Precentor Dune

What if the British Isles and England's overseas colonies were ISOT from July 1693 to July 1593?

raharris1973

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2021
Reaction score
1,313
So, William and Mary's England, Scotland and Ireland, and the other parts of England's overseas empire, including the 12 Colonies (sans Georgia) on eastern seaboard of North America, Hudson's Bay, Newfoundland settlements, Caribbean possessions including Jamaica, Barbados, St. Kitts and some others, and multiple trading posts in Africa, India, and the East Indies, are sent back in time, to the summer of 1593, about 100 years before.

William & Mary's Britain has a 100 year head start on technology and "news from the future" on everybody else in Europe. Ambassadors and merchants of uptime versions of nearly all the nations of Europe are also present in England, and especially cities like London and Bristol and are other sources of diffusion of future knowledge, so Britain's monopoly won't be forever.

How do things develop from here, with European great power politics, world trade, colonization of the Americas, domestic politics, and metropolitan-colonial relations?

------

A second scenario: What if the British Isles, Channel, North Sea & Irish Sea ISOT'ed from August 9, 1588 to Aug 9, 1488

This extends far enough south to cover the Gravelines battle site of the 8 August battle against the Spanish Armada. Details on the battle here: The End of the Spanish Armada | World Book

So, Elizabethan England, and the other parts of the British Isles, are sent back in time, to 4 years before the voyage of Columbus, with a 100 year head start on technology and "news from the future" on everybody else in Europe. Plus, they've got Francis Drake, Walter Raleigh, Francis Walsingham, and William Shakespeare on their side. England and Scotland, back in the world of 1488, are actually the world's only Protestant countries. That might change in a generation or two however.

Well actually, the English will *not* be the only ones to get 'news from the future' nor technology. The Spanish Armada was defeated and heavily damaged, but two-thirds of its ships did make it back to Spain. In this ATL, these ships, their crews and captains would bring back their 1588 knowledge and technology to 1488 Spain, and since they came from a motley assortment of Habsburg holdings like Portugal and the Netherlands in addition to Spain, the knowledge and tech will filter out.

However, England should still be the most advantaged country initially since it is an integrated whole as opposed to a defeated refugee Armada and set of sailors meeting their puzzled great-great-grandparents.

How do things develop from here, with European great power politics, religious affairs like the Reformation, Counter-Reformation and Inquisition, and world trade and colonization of the Americas?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATP

WolfBear

Well-known member
Banned - NSFW Pub
Joined
Dec 18, 2021
Reaction score
7,909
Thankfully, Martin Luther already existed in 1488, so the second ISOT won't butterfly away his existence. But I wonder just how he will be influenced by the news of the Reformation from the British Isles reaching his native Germany during his early childhood.
 

Buba

A total creep
Banned - Alternate History
Joined
Dec 10, 2020
Reaction score
3,429
1693 -> 1493
England is raking in money from trade with India and from sugar from Carribean so fast that it has no time to scratch its arse when it itches.
Portugal never achieves its greatness, as the English have almost 100 years of presence in India and the Far East.
Other repercusions are deep and broad, will address them later. Reformation starts two decades earlier, probably with a more Calvinist bent. The CoE is more Presbyterian than people think, this being obfuscated by episcopalianism and "old style" High Church vestments like the Catholics or Orthodox use, while the Kirk is hardcore witchburning Calvinist Protestantism.

1588 -> 1488
Portuguese survivors of Grande Armada make a beeline to Lisbon. Vasco da Gama (or Diogo Cao) sails for India in 1490. Portugal gets there sooner and keeps the British out, as these do not have the infrastructure nor navigation knowledge of African and Indian waters.
Also, the Avis dynasty changes marital matches policy as well puts out ALL infantes to stud, none are wasted on Church careers.
 
Last edited:

ATP

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Reaction score
5,225
1693 -> 1493
England is raking in money from trade with India and from sugar from Carribean so fast that it has no time to scratch its arse when it itches.
Portugal never achieves its greatness, as the English have almost 100 years of presence in India and the Far East.
Other repercusions are deep and broad, will address them later. Reformation starts two decades earlier, probably with a more Calvinist bent. The CoE is more Presbyterian than people think, this being obfuscated by episcopalianism and "old style" High Church vestments like the Catholics or Orthodox use, while the Kirk is hardcore witchburning Calvinist Protestantism.

1588 -> 1488
Portuguese survivors of Grande Armada make a beeline to Lisbon. Vasco da Gama (or Diogo Cao) sails for India in 1490. Portugal gets there sooner and keeps the British out, as these do not have the infrastructure nor navigation knowledge of African and Indian waters.
Also, the Avis dynasty changes marital matches policy as well puts out ALL infantes to stud, none are wasted on Church careers.
1.It is 1693 to 1593,not 1493.
So,Portugal colonial empire is arleady there,just like spanish empire.
What differences? England could win on seas,taking many colonies,but that is all.They would not win any european war.
So,unless 1593 Poland become smarter thanks to future knowledge,nothing change.

2.1588-1488 -
I think,that you just prevented fall of Hungary to Ottomans and rise of protestants in Europe.
But,England would beat Spain to Aztec and Iztac gold.Or not - Aztecs was too stupid to survive,but Incas could.
So,maybe we have Inca Empire here,too.
 

Buba

A total creep
Banned - Alternate History
Joined
Dec 10, 2020
Reaction score
3,429
1.It is 1693 to 1593,not 1493.
So,Portugal colonial empire is arleady there,just like spanish empire.
LOL! I need new glasses!

So,unless 1593 Poland become smarter thanks to future knowledge,nothing change.
My hopes for PLC getting smarter are low :(
 

ATP

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Reaction score
5,225
LOL! I need new glasses!


My hopes for PLC getting smarter are low :(
In 1593 we arleady had one of better of our Kings,so why not? His reign was stable,and he could made stable tax for military if he made it slowly and sold to gentry as tool of their defense.
 

stevep

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 18, 2020
Reaction score
1,953
1.It is 1693 to 1593,not 1493.
So,Portugal colonial empire is arleady there,just like spanish empire.
What differences? England could win on seas,taking many colonies,but that is all.They would not win any european war.
So,unless 1593 Poland become smarter thanks to future knowledge,nothing change.
I don't know about that. It has a centuries advance in military and economic knowledge and one of the great generals of the age. You think still pike based armies are going to stand much chance against muskets and more mobile cannons in an army lead by John Churchill!

Also since this is prior to the 30YW and the height of the counter-reformation. If it so chooses and there would be good reasons for it to do so given the probable hostility of the Catholic powers when religious fanaticism is far more important than a century later it could do a lot of support the assorted Protestant powers in Germany and elsewhere that were OTL threatened by the counter reformation. Also they might seek to aid Portugal in regaining independence from Spain.

Plus while the American gold is already having a negative impact on the Spanish economy its also very important for Spanish power and a lot of this is going to be cut off. While not the force it was a century later the RN at this time is a lot more powerful than anything 1593 has to offer.

The alternative is that some compromise is made with more moderate Catholic powers who could also benefit from such a deal.

2.1588-1488 -
I think,that you just prevented fall of Hungary to Ottomans and rise of protestants in Europe.
But,England would beat Spain to Aztec and Iztac gold.Or not - Aztecs was too stupid to survive,but Incas could.
So,maybe we have Inca Empire here,too.
Possibly although a lot of butterflies here. England and Scotland are the only Protestant powers as suggested but their access to knowledge and technology, especially the printing press could make for an earlier reformation starting and it possibly spreading a bit wider. They would have a big advantage in terms of access to the new world but the Spanish survivors would also be able to inform their king about the situation so the two could end up clashing there. At this time however Spain is still waging war to conquer Granada, which didn't end until 1491. It could end a bit earlier with 1566 knowledge if spread quickly to the down-time Spanish.

You are likely to end up with the two powers clashing in the Americas with the initial advantage to the more sea-worthy English ships especially since 1488 Spain may struggle for a while before they can produce replacements of the same standard.

As I think someone said the Portugese are likely to change at least some of their policies, preferably avoiding the later conquest by Spain.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Reaction score
5,225
I don't know about that. It has a centuries advance in military and economic knowledge and one of the great generals of the age. You think still pike based armies are going to stand much chance against muskets and more mobile cannons in an army lead by John Churchill!

Also since this is prior to the 30YW and the height of the counter-reformation. If it so chooses and there would be good reasons for it to do so given the probable hostility of the Catholic powers when religious fanaticism is far more important than a century later it could do a lot of support the assorted Protestant powers in Germany and elsewhere that were OTL threatened by the counter reformation. Also they might seek to aid Portugal in regaining independence from Spain.

Plus while the American gold is already having a negative impact on the Spanish economy its also very important for Spanish power and a lot of this is going to be cut off. While not the force it was a century later the RN at this time is a lot more powerful than anything 1593 has to offer.

The alternative is that some compromise is made with more moderate Catholic powers who could also benefit from such a deal.



Possibly although a lot of butterflies here. England and Scotland are the only Protestant powers as suggested but their access to knowledge and technology, especially the printing press could make for an earlier reformation starting and it possibly spreading a bit wider. They would have a big advantage in terms of access to the new world but the Spanish survivors would also be able to inform their king about the situation so the two could end up clashing there. At this time however Spain is still waging war to conquer Granada, which didn't end until 1491. It could end a bit earlier with 1566 knowledge if spread quickly to the down-time Spanish.

You are likely to end up with the two powers clashing in the Americas with the initial advantage to the more sea-worthy English ships especially since 1488 Spain may struggle for a while before they can produce replacements of the same standard.

As I think someone said the Portugese are likely to change at least some of their policies, preferably avoiding the later conquest by Spain.
1.Catholics was treathened by protestants,not other way.And England could help them,but - on land they would still do not win by themselves.They need cannonfodder for that.
And,in 1593 ,if they attack too much,they would face winged hussarls from 1593 - force capable of going through anything on battlefield.
They becomed worst and worst in time becouse they less trained,but those from 1593 would go through anything till Crimea War.Army from 1693 - they would finish them in no time.

And,taking spanish gold would help them in long run - they had very good economical theory from Salamanca school/something like austrian school/ but ignored it becouse much gold.
Now,they would have no other choice.

2.I think,that England would still take Aztecs down here.
And protestant revolution is aborted - becouse pope would knew better how to react.Remember,people in those times belived in God.
England from 1588,where catholics was tortured to death,would be kind of warning from God for them.
 

raharris1973

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2021
Reaction score
1,313
I don't know about that. It has a centuries advance in military and economic knowledge and one of the great generals of the age. You think still pike based armies are going to stand much chance against muskets and more mobile cannons in an army lead by John Churchill!

Also since this is prior to the 30YW and the height of the counter-reformation. If it so chooses and there would be good reasons for it to do so given the probable hostility of the Catholic powers when religious fanaticism is far more important than a century later it could do a lot of support the assorted Protestant powers in Germany and elsewhere that were OTL threatened by the counter reformation. Also they might seek to aid Portugal in regaining independence from Spain.

Plus while the American gold is already having a negative impact on the Spanish economy its also very important for Spanish power and a lot of this is going to be cut off. While not the force it was a century later the RN at this time is a lot more powerful than anything 1593 has to offer.

The alternative is that some compromise is made with more moderate Catholic powers who could also benefit from such a deal.
Good points on the 1693 to 1593 scenario!

Some other points of interest on this scenario - I think William of Orange will want to intervene early and often in the 80 Years War to win independence for Netherlands, in less than 80 years. With John Churchill, maybe he can pull it off, and maybe with the Netherlands side still holding a lot of Belgium too. The main limiter on William's ability to intervene will be parliamentary suspicion and reluctance to put English resources behind a foreign cause favored by a foreign born King.

Anglo-America, the 12 colonies, has a century head start. I strongly suspect that New England pioneers will swarm over Nova Scotia and the St. Lawrence Valley to make sure that the French never get to establish colonies at Quebec or or Port Royal Acadia. Since the French got to the mouth of the Mississippi from the north, not the Gulf, and the English in Carolina are closer anyway, French Louisiana isn't likely to happen either. It should end up as English Carolana, or a weird expansion of Florida.

William knows the value of Java and the Cape of Good Hope from Dutch experience. Perhaps in a trade for parliamentary tolerance of intervention on behalf of Dutch independence, he works to claim both of these for England.

One thing about British Indian trading posts - if back timed a century, they could face more opposition if popping up out of the blue in front of a strong Mughal Emperor.

---
Now on the Elizabethan era Britain from 1588 to 1488 -

With Europe a century behind, many of England's continental complications make of 1588 make little sense-

The Dutch are not in revolt at the Spanish yet, they are not united with them either, though Mary of Burgundy is married to Maximilian of the Habsburgs. The Habsburgs may or may not yet have a marriage alliance with the Aragonese-Spanish Trastamaras yet, sort of directed against the French. The English Pale of Calais still exists - would Elizabeth's England try to hold the Pale, expand it, or perhaps trade it for something else? There are no existing French Huguenots to try to champion.

If Elizabeth's England is going to persist in an anti-Spanish line, even against the old 1488 Spain, after the routing of the Spanish Armada, there are opportunities to muck with Spain close to home, like aiding Granada to slow down its conquest. Elizabeth and the English may not care to. On the other hand, perhaps they might as well, because Armada survivors from 1588 will have a grudge against 1588 England, and Elizabeth its heretic Queen, and England could have every motive to ruthlessly compete with Spain for all parts of the Americas.
 

Buba

A total creep
Banned - Alternate History
Joined
Dec 10, 2020
Reaction score
3,429
British Indian trading posts - if back timed a century, they could face more opposition if popping up out of the blue in front of a strong Mughal Emperor.
They are on the perfiry or outside Mughal control? And still using "jaw-jaw diplomacy" and not "Sepoy diplomacy" like a less than a century later. An 1793 to 1593 ISOT would had been bloody and painful for the HEIC.
aiding Granada to slow down its conquest
in 1488 Granada is as good as dead.
 

stevep

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 18, 2020
Reaction score
1,953
They are on the perfiry or outside Mughal control? And still using "jaw-jaw diplomacy" and not "Sepoy diplomacy" like a less than a century later. An 1793 to 1593 ISOT would had been bloody and painful for the HEIC.

in 1488 Granada is as good as dead.
A 1793 to 1593 ISOT would be a massacre for the Mughals. By then Britain has not only much better tech but also some considerable territorial possessions, most noticeably Bengal. Not to mention being able in the longer run the resources they can draw from the rest of Britain. The Mughal empire was large and at its early peak but has a huge tech shortfall and I'm not sure sheer weight of numbers would be that important, especially given the issue of deploying them.

Granada is probably doomed but if Britain chooses to support it then it could be saved and would give Britain a secure base for operations in the western Med. Therefore it would depend on what happens in terms of relations with Spain and probably the continent as a whole. - Note. Apologies getting confused between the two options. :oops: It would be a lot harder for 1588 England to save Granada than it would have been for the 1693 Britain.
 
Last edited:

stevep

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 18, 2020
Reaction score
1,953
Good points on the 1693 to 1593 scenario!

Some other points of interest on this scenario - I think William of Orange will want to intervene early and often in the 80 Years War to win independence for Netherlands, in less than 80 years. With John Churchill, maybe he can pull it off, and maybe with the Netherlands side still holding a lot of Belgium too. The main limiter on William's ability to intervene will be parliamentary suspicion and reluctance to put English resources behind a foreign cause favored by a foreign born King.
Good point on Parliament's reluctance to support a foreign born king working for what many would still see as his homeland. There is no clear military threat like Louis XIV was OTL. However in 1693 religion is still a factor, with James II's open Catholicism being the primary reason for his disposal. Its even more important in 1593 and the British know that the great religious wars are just coming up so I think that would be an important issue. Britain is already fairly familiar with the issue of the balance of power and also with the need to challenge Spain's self proclaimed monopoly on American territory - other than Brazil being Portuguese. As such I think that efforts to help the Dutch in specific and the continental Protestants in general as a necessary move, at least unless it becomes too expensive. They might, knowing how powerful the Netherlands became OTL not want it becoming too successful. However your point below about Britain securing the richest lands of the Dutch colonial empire could effectively counter that.

Anglo-America, the 12 colonies, has a century head start. I strongly suspect that New England pioneers will swarm over Nova Scotia and the St. Lawrence Valley to make sure that the French never get to establish colonies at Quebec or or Port Royal Acadia. Since the French got to the mouth of the Mississippi from the north, not the Gulf, and the English in Carolina are closer anyway, French Louisiana isn't likely to happen either. It should end up as English Carolana, or a weird expansion of Florida.
Agree that it would make sense to secure the mouths of both the St Lawrence and Mississippi to block access to the intererior to rivals although I think the Spanish were already - checking they established their 1st colony there at St Augustine in 1565 so I would expect there would be conflict with them and probably a bid to secure Cuba as well as that could be quite wealthy and help secure the south coast.

It could be that in the shorter term, since the continental colonies are still relatively low in population and economic importance, there will be more interest in some of the Caribbean islands and possibly parts of the mainland, as that's where the real money was by the 1690's. Although the big problem with this neck of the woods is of course illness, which could shatter armies all too easily.

William knows the value of Java and the Cape of Good Hope from Dutch experience. Perhaps in a trade for parliamentary tolerance of intervention on behalf of Dutch independence, he works to claim both of these for England.
Would agree with this. Its a good bribe for winning Parliament over that Britain gets the stepping stone and the very wealthy East Indies which would also be seen as a way of keeping an independent and possibly larger Netherlands weaker.

One thing about British Indian trading posts - if back timed a century, they could face more opposition if popping up out of the blue in front of a strong Mughal Emperor.
True although in the 1690's that they came from they were facing the even militarily more powerful empire of Aurangzeb. However the sudden change in their position in India could upset the Mughals and at least is likely to cause some tension.

---
Now on the Elizabethan era Britain from 1588 to 1488 -

With Europe a century behind, many of England's continental complications make of 1588 make little sense-
Agreed. Although it will be necessary to find some allies. However religion aside the mutual hostility between various powers should give some options.

The Dutch are not in revolt at the Spanish yet, they are not united with them either, though Mary of Burgundy is married to Maximilian of the Habsburgs. The Habsburgs may or may not yet have a marriage alliance with the Aragonese-Spanish Trastamaras yet, sort of directed against the French. The English Pale of Calais still exists - would Elizabeth's England try to hold the Pale, expand it, or perhaps trade it for something else? There are no existing French Huguenots to try to champion.
Agreed on the Dutch. In terms of Calais I think it would depend a lot on how relations are with the continental powers, most especially France.

If Elizabeth's England is going to persist in an anti-Spanish line, even against the old 1488 Spain, after the routing of the Spanish Armada, there are opportunities to muck with Spain close to home, like aiding Granada to slow down its conquest. Elizabeth and the English may not care to. On the other hand, perhaps they might as well, because Armada survivors from 1588 will have a grudge against 1588 England, and Elizabeth its heretic Queen, and England could have every motive to ruthlessly compete with Spain for all parts of the Americas.
I would agree that Spain is the most likely opponent for the reasons you mention.
 

stevep

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 18, 2020
Reaction score
1,953
1.Catholics was treathened by protestants,not other way.And England could help them,but - on land they would still do not win by themselves.They need cannonfodder for that.
And,in 1593 ,if they attack too much,they would face winged hussarls from 1593 - force capable of going through anything on battlefield.
They becomed worst and worst in time becouse they less trained,but those from 1593 would go through anything till Crimea War.Army from 1693 - they would finish them in no time.

And,taking spanish gold would help them in long run - they had very good economical theory from Salamanca school/something like austrian school/ but ignored it becouse much gold.
Now,they would have no other choice.

2.I think,that England would still take Aztecs down here.
And protestant revolution is aborted - becouse pope would knew better how to react.Remember,people in those times belived in God.
England from 1588,where catholics was tortured to death,would be kind of warning from God for them.
While looking at sources for replying to other people I noticed this link.

Under Habsburg Charles V, ruler of the Holy Roman Empire and King of Spain, all fiefs in the current Netherlands region were united into the Seventeen Provinces, which also included most of present-day Belgium, Luxembourg, and some adjacent land in what is now France and Germany. In 1568, under Phillip II, the Eighty Years' War between the Provinces and their Spanish ruler began. The level of ferocity exhibited by both sides can be gleaned from a Dutch chronicler's report:[68]


On more than one occasion men were seen hanging their own brothers, who had been taken prisoners in the enemy's ranks... A Spaniard had ceased to be human in their eyes. On one occasion, a surgeon at Veer cut the heart from a Spanish prisoner, nailed it on a vessel's prow, and invited the townsmen to come and fasten their teeth in it, which many did with savage satisfaction.
The Duke of Alba ruthlessly attempted to suppress the Protestant movement in the Netherlands. Netherlanders were "burned, strangled, beheaded, or buried alive" by his "Blood Council" and his Spanish soldiers. Severed heads and decapitated corpses were displayed along streets and roads to terrorise the population into submission. Alba boasted of having executed 18,600,[69][70] but this figure does not include those who perished by war and famine.[citation needed]

The first great siege was Alba's effort to capture Haarlem and thereby cut Holland in half. It dragged on from December 1572 to the next summer, when Haarlemers finally surrendered on 13 July upon the promise that the city would be spared from being sacked. It was a stipulation Don Fadrique was unable to honour, when his soldiers mutinied, angered over pay owed and the miserable conditions they endured during the long, cold months of the campaign.[71] On 4 November 1576, Spanish tercios seized Antwerp and subjected it to the worst pillage in the Netherlands' history. The citizens resisted, but were overcome; seven thousand of them were mowed down; a thousand buildings were torched; men, women, and children were slaughtered in a delirium of blood by soldiers crying, "Santiago! España! A sangre, a carne, a fuego, a sacco!" (Saint James! Spain! To blood, to the flesh, to fire, to sack!)[72]


The Spanish Fury at Maastricht, 1579

Following the sack of Antwerp, delegates from Catholic Brabant, Protestant Holland and Zeeland agreed, at Ghent, to join Utrecht and William the Silent in driving out all Spanish troops and forming a new government for the Netherlands. Don Juan of Austria, the new Spanish governor, was forced to concede initially, but within months returned to active hostilities. As the fighting restarted, the Dutch began to look for help from the Queen of England, but she initially stood by her commitments to the Spanish in the Treaty of Bristol of 1574. According to Gillespie Alexander the result was that when the next large-scale battle did occur at Gembloux in 1578, the Spanish forces easily won the day, killing at least 10,000 rebels, with the Spanish suffering few losses.[73][dubiousdiscuss] In light of the defeat at Gembloux, the southern states of the Seventeen Provinces (today in northern France and Belgium) distanced themselves from the rebels in the north with the 1579 Union of Arras, which expressed their loyalty to Philip II of Spain. Opposing them, the northern half of the Seventeen Provinces forged the Union of Utrecht (also of 1579) in which they committed to support each other in their defence against the Spanish army.[74] The Union of Utrecht is seen as the foundation of the modern Netherlands.[citation needed]

Spanish troops sacked Maastricht in 1579, killing over 10,000 civilians and thereby ensuring the rebellion continued.[75] In 1581, the northern provinces adopted the Act of Abjuration, the declaration of independence in which the provinces officially deposed Philip II as reigning monarch in the northern provinces.[76] Against the rebels Philip could draw on the resources of Spain, Spanish America, Spanish Italy and the Spanish Netherlands. The Protestant Queen Elizabeth I of England sympathised with the Dutch struggle against the Spanish and sent an army of 7,600 soldiers to aid the Dutch in their war with the Catholic Spanish.[77] English forces under the Earl of Leicester and then Lord Willoughby faced the Spanish in the Netherlands under the Duke of Parma in a series of largely indecisive actions that tied down significant numbers of Spanish troops and bought time for the Dutch to reorganise their defences.[78] The war continued until 1648, when Spain under King Philip IV finally recognised the independence of the seven north-western provinces in the Peace of Münster. Parts of the southern provinces became de facto colonies of the new republican-mercantile
All sides in conflicts tend to commit atrocities and the Catholic powers were no exception so continuing to pretend otherwise just makes you look stupid. That you can't accept basic facts undermines everything you say.

Ditto with your pretense that Catholics alone believe in god. The reformation may be still-born on the continent but with the resources available to 1588 England its got a good chance of an earlier and more successful birth. Thinking mainly of printing as that was the key measure in undermining the clergies control of knowledge.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Reaction score
5,225
While looking at sources for replying to other people I noticed this link.



All sides in conflicts tend to commit atrocities and the Catholic powers were no exception so continuing to pretend otherwise just makes you look stupid. That you can't accept basic facts undermines everything you say.

Ditto with your pretense that Catholics alone believe in god. The reformation may be still-born on the continent but with the resources available to 1588 England its got a good chance of an earlier and more successful birth. Thinking mainly of printing as that was the key measure in undermining the clergies control of knowledge.
1.Your link pproved that protestant started atrocities first in Netherland.Spaniards only becomed as good as they were.

2.Catholics belived in God.Protestants in state,becouse their churches are part of state.And clergy never controlled knowledge,only preserved it from fall of Rome and created first Universities.

Protestants come to power becouse secular rulers wanted powers of gods for themselves,and steal property of Church.Which they did.Common people fought against it,like in England in 1549.
 

stevep

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 18, 2020
Reaction score
1,953
1.Your link pproved that protestant started atrocities first in Netherland.Spaniards only becomed as good as they were.

2.Catholics belived in God.Protestants in state,becouse their churches are part of state.And clergy never controlled knowledge,only preserved it from fall of Rome and created first Universities.

Protestants come to power becouse secular rulers wanted powers of gods for themselves,and steal property of Church.Which they did.Common people fought against it,like in England in 1549.
Untrue. It mentions atrocities by Protestants before those for Catholics but not any dates for the former. Both sides committed atrocities as such groups have done throughout history. Trying to pretend Catholicism with its long history of brutality and oppression is somehow saintly is dishonest. Especially since in the examples given the Catholic atrocities were far larger in scope. Ironically as it pointed out it was the savagely of the Spanish which kept the rebellion going.

I have noticed that if we made three changes to your language i.e. substitute Allah for God, Muhammad for Christ and Caliphate for Papacy and you would fit quite well in the recent ignorant savage movement.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Reaction score
5,225
Untrue. It mentions atrocities by Protestants before those for Catholics but not any dates for the former. Both sides committed atrocities as such groups have done throughout history. Trying to pretend Catholicism with its long history of brutality and oppression is somehow saintly is dishonest. Especially since in the examples given the Catholic atrocities were far larger in scope. Ironically as it pointed out it was the savagely of the Spanish which kept the rebellion going.

I have noticed that if we made three changes to your language i.e. substitute Allah for God, Muhammad for Christ and Caliphate for Papacy and you would fit quite well in the recent ignorant savage movement.
Long story of brutality? compared to what protestants did,it was nothing.And,they take over countries which populacy do not wanted it.
In name of power for princes and ruling elites.
And,if you belive that catholics are muslims,then maybe you buy Moon from me?
 

stevep

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 18, 2020
Reaction score
1,953
Long story of brutality? compared to what protestants did,it was nothing.And,they take over countries which populacy do not wanted it.
In name of power for princes and ruling elites.
In the same way as Catholic rulers did. Also as the article pointed out the Spanish massacres, fully approved all the way up their chain of command to Philip the deranged bigot were far larger than anything the local population were able to do to their attackers.

Not to mention your continued idiotic pretense that Catholic = angelic and Protestant = demonic. Nothing to do with the point under discussion other than that you use it to try and distract from the facts presented.

And,if you belive that catholics are muslims,then maybe you buy Moon from me?
Again you don't listen. I said that your viewpoint is basically the same as that of IS. Unlike you I'm not a bigot who sees in black and white only with everybody else outside my group being evil. There are good and bad people in all groups but totalitaian systems are more likely to be controlled by the corrupt and also lure in corrupt and/or evil people.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Reaction score
5,225
In the same way as Catholic rulers did. Also as the article pointed out the Spanish massacres, fully approved all the way up their chain of command to Philip the deranged bigot were far larger than anything the local population were able to do to their attackers.

Not to mention your continued idiotic pretense that Catholic = angelic and Protestant = demonic. Nothing to do with the point under discussion other than that you use it to try and distract from the facts presented.



Again you don't listen. I said that your viewpoint is basically the same as that of IS. Unlike you I'm not a bigot who sees in black and white only with everybody else outside my group being evil. There are good and bad people in all groups but totalitaian systems are more likely to be controlled by the corrupt and also lure in corrupt and/or evil people.
1.Then you do not read properly.We are not angelic,or protestant demonic.only difference is that our Church forbid such things like genocide or stealing lands/unless some popes get greedy,like that idiot who gave Ireland to England/
when protestant church is part of state and when state say genocide,pastors say jawolh.That is all.

2.Yes,there aer good and bad people.
And there is Catholic Church which teaching forbid genocide or stealing,even if some popes break that,
and Protestant churches which are part of state and support anything state would do.
 

stevep

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 18, 2020
Reaction score
1,953
1.Then you do not read properly.We are not angelic,or protestant demonic.only difference is that our Church forbid such things like genocide or stealing lands/unless some popes get greedy,like that idiot who gave Ireland to England/
when protestant church is part of state and when state say genocide,pastors say jawolh.That is all.

2.Yes,there aer good and bad people.
And there is Catholic Church which teaching forbid genocide or stealing,even if some popes break that,
and Protestant churches which are part of state and support anything state would do.
As you say you have repeatedly claimed that the Catholic church is innocent and the victim of others when that has frequently not been the case and that no other religious groups has any moral validity. I'm also not aware of the Catholic church complaining about Charlemagne's atrocities in 782 while as you have admitted yourself calling for the slaughter of people who disagree with your church.

For general information I'm talking not just about discussions here but also an attempt at private discussion to avoid hijacking another thread. Unfortunately any attempt at serious discussion has failed over ATP's extreme claims that Catholicism has a monopoly of truth and hence can do anything to anyone else. He seems nothing but a pit of hatred and bigotry who worship's a god he depicts as a vicious thug continually demanding blood sacrifice.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Reaction score
5,225
As you say you have repeatedly claimed that the Catholic church is innocent and the victim of others when that has frequently not been the case and that no other religious groups has any moral validity. I'm also not aware of the Catholic church complaining about Charlemagne's atrocities in 782 while as you have admitted yourself calling for the slaughter of people who disagree with your church.

For general information I'm talking not just about discussions here but also an attempt at private discussion to avoid hijacking another thread. Unfortunately any attempt at serious discussion has failed over ATP's extreme claims that Catholicism has a monopoly of truth and hence can do anything to anyone else. He seems nothing but a pit of hatred and bigotry who worship's a god he depicts as a vicious thug continually demanding blood sacrifice.
Yep,and i did holocaust with my own hands.

Yes,Catholic church had monopol on Truth.No,we could not do anything we want but what God want.
And Our/your too/ God died and ressurected for us ,gave us Church so we could go to heawens,but - we still could choose hell.
Becouse HE love us and gave us free Will.

P.S For your information - ANY religion claims monopoly on Truth.You need to remove that? better then you,like Marx,Lenin,Sralin,Hitler,Mao and Pol pot tried and failed.
 
Top Bottom