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

stevep

Well-known member
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.

As you say your an empty headed bigot. Nothing more needs to be said.

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.

Not true on the 1st point. A number of religions have tended to be more tolerant but they do tend to get stamped out by the more barbaric ones.

On the 2nd bit I define faith systems as those that derive ideas and values drawing on desires rather than evidence. As such I see no fundamental difference between the Abrahmic faiths and other totalitianally orientated faiths such as fascist or communism. Like you they assume they have a monopoly on knowledge and hence have the right to do anything they wish to anyone who dares to disagree with them.

As I have said before I judge people by their actions. There are many people who are part of one of those faith systems but their basic humanity wins out and they stay decent people. Its the fanatics who assume their gods that we have to worry about. Fortunately we live in a liberal system with a strong rule of law so maniacs like your aren't allowed to murder your way to your blood god's heaven.
 

ATP

Well-known member
As you say your an empty headed bigot. Nothing more needs to be said.



Not true on the 1st point. A number of religions have tended to be more tolerant but they do tend to get stamped out by the more barbaric ones.

On the 2nd bit I define faith systems as those that derive ideas and values drawing on desires rather than evidence. As such I see no fundamental difference between the Abrahmic faiths and other totalitianally orientated faiths such as fascist or communism. Like you they assume they have a monopoly on knowledge and hence have the right to do anything they wish to anyone who dares to disagree with them.

As I have said before I judge people by their actions. There are many people who are part of one of those faith systems but their basic humanity wins out and they stay decent people. Its the fanatics who assume their gods that we have to worry about. Fortunately we live in a liberal system with a strong rule of law so maniacs like your aren't allowed to murder your way to your blood god's heaven.

1.Yes,you bigot with head full of funny ideas.
2.Each religion want save soul,so THEY COULD NOT BE TOLERANT.Difference is - some religions,like islam or buddhism force conversation,others stopped that.
3.Communism is as good as judaism or Christianity? REALLY ?
4.so,i do not murder thanks to liberal system? REALLY ? for your info,i live in Poland,which,according to EU,is fascist state.
So,why we do not start another holocaust yet?
 

ATP

Well-known member
Can you take the "Prot vs. Kafflik - who bigger cunt" disussion elsewhere?

ME BIGGA CUNT! NOT PUNY @stevep !

Jokes aside - England from 1693 could prevent french from taking any parts of America,but that would be all.
If England invade Europe,Poland would help eradicate them.
And winged hussarls from 1593 would stomp anything till Napoleon times.

Other possible otcome - Poland could remain superpower.
 

raharris1973

Well-known member
This is the OP continuing here:

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.

Although the timeframe, 1693 to 1493, is an error in interpretation of the first post, it is interesting to speculate upon.

It is the Britwankiest of options presented so far, because it provides Britain a two-century advantage instead of a mere one century advantage against a less prepared opposition.

For reasons of opportunism and knowledge that the decades ahead, toward 1500, are the time of Spain's illustrious rise, more so than France, I think that ISOT'ed Britain will switch from regarding France as the main rival, target, and menace to regarding Spain and the Habsburgs as the main rival, target and menace.

William and Mary's and Parliament's England and Scotland, all its Whigs and Tories, would agree that Britain should should preempt Spain's nascent expansion in the America's, using Britain's superior naval resources and technology, and its North American and Caribbean bases, to grant Britain as much a monopoly as possible over the Caribbean that Columbus has just found and reported back to Spain, as well as the "treasure-boxes" of the North American mainland like Mexico and Peru. Nor is Britain obligated to respect Portugal's monopoly over African trade, nor allow Portugal, rather than Britain, to be the first to announce to Europe the discovery and operation of the Cape trade route to India, the spice islands, and China.

Britain need not even cruelly expel Portugal from anything it owns in the 1490s, although it can whenever it really wants to, it mainly needs to preempt it in places Portugal has not gotten to yet. This could or could not include Brazil, depending on London's appetite.

To further hobble Spain, and strengthen Britain's position in the Mediterranean and eastern Atlantic, Britain could fairly easily occupy the Balearic and Canary Islands. If worried about finding a loyal settler population, the British need not spread their own English, Scots, nor Protestant Irish too far. They could find ready batches of *very* recently exiled Spanish Jews willing to settle in those areas to hold down Balearic and Canary Islands protectorates under British protection and suzerainty. If the British come to recognize the value of it down the line and have further fighting with Spain, they may similarly seize
Gibraltar. This "solution" of instrumentally using Sephardic Jews against Catholic Spain is one that could appeal to heavily Protestantized Britain of 1693, especially the Calvinist and nonconformist elements who re-legalized a Jewish presence in England under the Commonwealth and Protectorate.

In the 1588 to 1488 Elizabethan ISOT scenario, a similar option to preempt and poach up the big prizes of the Age of Discovery could present itself. With the Alhambra decrees and Jewish expulsion, even this idea of Balearic and Canaries Jewish protectorates could be tried, but it would require a greater leap of English imagination since in that age, 1588, the Jews had not yet been readmitted to England. Also, England with only a one-century advantage and no real overseas colonies could have a harder time preemptive monopolizing the extra-European world. But, it could hit the priority spots, emphasizing Caribbean, Mexico, Peru for their wealth, ensuring they get a piece of India and the spice islands, and perhaps ironically neglect the eastern seaboard of North America to not get spread too thin.

No matter when Britain comes from. (1693, 1488), and when it goes to (1593, 1493, 1488) it can work its hardest to make sure that neither Spain. nor France, nor a centralizing continental power like Austria gain secure dominant control over most of what we know as Belgium and Antwerp, and provide an independent, and Britain hopes mostly Protestant Netherlands, with more of a hinterland.
 

ATP

Well-known member
This is the OP continuing here:



Although the timeframe, 1693 to 1493, is an error in interpretation of the first post, it is interesting to speculate upon.

It is the Britwankiest of options presented so far, because it provides Britain a two-century advantage instead of a mere one century advantage against a less prepared opposition.

For reasons of opportunism and knowledge that the decades ahead, toward 1500, are the time of Spain's illustrious rise, more so than France, I think that ISOT'ed Britain will switch from regarding France as the main rival, target, and menace to regarding Spain and the Habsburgs as the main rival, target and menace.

William and Mary's and Parliament's England and Scotland, all its Whigs and Tories, would agree that Britain should should preempt Spain's nascent expansion in the America's, using Britain's superior naval resources and technology, and its North American and Caribbean bases, to grant Britain as much a monopoly as possible over the Caribbean that Columbus has just found and reported back to Spain, as well as the "treasure-boxes" of the North American mainland like Mexico and Peru. Nor is Britain obligated to respect Portugal's monopoly over African trade, nor allow Portugal, rather than Britain, to be the first to announce to Europe the discovery and operation of the Cape trade route to India, the spice islands, and China.

Britain need not even cruelly expel Portugal from anything it owns in the 1490s, although it can whenever it really wants to, it mainly needs to preempt it in places Portugal has not gotten to yet. This could or could not include Brazil, depending on London's appetite.

To further hobble Spain, and strengthen Britain's position in the Mediterranean and eastern Atlantic, Britain could fairly easily occupy the Balearic and Canary Islands. If worried about finding a loyal settler population, the British need not spread their own English, Scots, nor Protestant Irish too far. They could find ready batches of *very* recently exiled Spanish Jews willing to settle in those areas to hold down Balearic and Canary Islands protectorates under British protection and suzerainty. If the British come to recognize the value of it down the line and have further fighting with Spain, they may similarly seize
Gibraltar. This "solution" of instrumentally using Sephardic Jews against Catholic Spain is one that could appeal to heavily Protestantized Britain of 1693, especially the Calvinist and nonconformist elements who re-legalized a Jewish presence in England under the Commonwealth and Protectorate.

In the 1588 to 1488 Elizabethan ISOT scenario, a similar option to preempt and poach up the big prizes of the Age of Discovery could present itself. With the Alhambra decrees and Jewish expulsion, even this idea of Balearic and Canaries Jewish protectorates could be tried, but it would require a greater leap of English imagination since in that age, 1588, the Jews had not yet been readmitted to England. Also, England with only a one-century advantage and no real overseas colonies could have a harder time preemptive monopolizing the extra-European world. But, it could hit the priority spots, emphasizing Caribbean, Mexico, Peru for their wealth, ensuring they get a piece of India and the spice islands, and perhaps ironically neglect the eastern seaboard of North America to not get spread too thin.

No matter when Britain comes from. (1693, 1488), and when it goes to (1593, 1493, 1488) it can work its hardest to make sure that neither Spain. nor France, nor a centralizing continental power like Austria gain secure dominant control over most of what we know as Belgium and Antwerp, and provide an independent, and Britain hopes mostly Protestant Netherlands, with more of a hinterland.
1693 to 1493? you probably prevented Luder here,and saved Hungary.
And, England would conqer Aztecs,but not Peru - it was possible only becouse Pizzarro was very,very lucky.You could not count on it here.
But,England could hold Americas mostly for themselves.

Europe,except cracking on protestants and saving Hungary - Poland should remain as local superpower,too.
And ,Ottomans,Moscov and prussians probably never become powerfull.
 

raharris1973

Well-known member
1693 to 1493? you probably prevented Luder here,
Why, do you think the Church makes better use of the warning of what is coming than dissident monks and priests and princes pissed with the Church?

1693 to 1493? .....saved Hungary.
Do you think 1693 England would especially favor Hungary? Or Hungary would make better use of future knowledge than the Turks?

And, England would conqer Aztecs,but not Peru - it was possible only becouse Pizzarro was very,very lucky.You could not count on it here.
The Incas may not fall easy for England like for Pizarro, but the English know what its worth and can put together and fund larger forces, these are people who 70 years later went pretty big against some mass armies in India with impressive artillery. They will still have naval, disease, and firepower advantages to slog it out with the Inca and reduce them to trade dependents and then subjects in time.

Europe,except cracking on protestants
So England-Scotland the dual monarchy remains the one country that's strongly Protestant, while mainland Europe is under a strong preemptive Counter-Reformation?

Would that logic maybe apply to any of the scenarios where Protestant Britain/England goes back to before the Lutheran Reformation? So also to the Elizabethan England from 1588 to 1488 scenario? Why not?
 

ATP

Well-known member
Why, do you think the Church makes better use of the warning of what is coming than dissident monks and priests and princes pissed with the Church?
Of course - and german princes was not pissed,they want steal Church property - which they did.
Do you think 1693 England would especially favor Hungary? Or Hungary would make better use of future knowledge than the Turks?

Second,England cared little about balkans.
The Incas may not fall easy for England like for Pizarro, but the English know what its worth and can put together and fund larger forces, these are people who 70 years later went pretty big against some mass armies in India with impressive artillery. They will still have naval, disease, and firepower advantages to slog it out with the Inca and reduce them to trade dependents and then subjects in time.
England would take shores,but not mountains.1693 weapons would not help there.And Incas would not agree to be vassals,they considered themselves as descendents of gods.
So England-Scotland the dual monarchy remains the one country that's strongly Protestant, while mainland Europe is under a strong preemptive Counter-Reformation?
Yes.And,with Ottomans beaten by another Crusade.
Would that logic maybe apply to any of the scenarios where Protestant Britain/England goes back to before the Lutheran Reformation? So also to the Elizabethan England from 1588 to 1488 scenario? Why not?
Exactly - but 1588 England would be not strong enough to take both Americas.1693 could do so.

Another change - spice islands,which in OTL was win by dutch who defeated brits in many wars there,would be british,too.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top