Pope sends direct message to Ben

[Ben Kenobi]

I think this is what they call the "argument from ignorance" fallacy. It is entirely possible that Henry's figures are incorrect in some way; it does not follow from that alone that the real figures were higher by, what, an order of magnitude?

He executed around 50 nobles. Given their proportion of the population, I don't see 75k as a stretch.

More than that, even? Your only other argument is that it was consistent with Henry's character to kill a crap-ton of people.

He didn't hesitate to execute in order to maintain social order in England. Why would he hesitate to execute rabble rousers that were standing in his way? Especially not when the dissolution of the monasteries and the income derived thereof were a significant proportion of his income? Henry VIII spent it all too. Back then - how many would care if he executed commoners? Would anything be written down about them to be passed on? Unlikely.

we don't take that as evidence that he fathered two thousand children.

Right because every time you have sex you father a child.

[Elok]

I don't know why you guys bother with this idiot.

It's the magical combination of easily-refuted arguments, outrageous claims, and dogged persistence. We can't resist his charms.

[Elok]

Would you expect Henry VIII's Privy Council to provide an accurate count?



All I'm arguing is that the lists we have today are by no means exhaustive. Arguing "so and so says only this many people died, means that this was the true extent", is false. All we can say from it is that these are a minimum estimate, not a maximum.

I think this is what they call the "argument from ignorance" fallacy. It is entirely possible that Henry's figures are incorrect in some way; it does not follow from that alone that the real figures were higher by, what, an order of magnitude? More than that, even? Your only other argument is that it was consistent with Henry's character to kill a crap-ton of people. So what? It was also consistent with Henry's character to hump everything in a skirt; we don't take that as evidence that he fathered two thousand children.

[Ben Kenobi]

"Well, the official sources are biased, so we should just go by how terrible I imagine the real figures to be."

Would you expect Henry VIII's Privy Council to provide an accurate count?

And if you're claiming tens of thousands of missing casualties, unmentioned bishops are unlikely to account for a significant percentage. Unless England had thousands of bishops.

All I'm arguing is that the lists we have today are by no means exhaustive. Arguing "so and so says only this many people died, means that this was the true extent", is false. All we can say from it is that these are a minimum estimate, not a maximum.

[Sava]

I don't know why you guys bother with this idiot.

[Elok]

"Well, the official sources are biased, so we should just go by how terrible I imagine the real figures to be."

And if you're claiming tens of thousands of missing casualties, unmentioned bishops are unlikely to account for a significant percentage. Unless England had thousands of bishops.

[Ben Kenobi]

it doesn't seem plausible at all. very few were killed during the dissolution of the monasteries

According to whom? Henry VIII?

as a result of the revolt against the dissolution (the pilgrimage of grace), 216 people were executed.

That we know of.

however, i would think that 70,000 people dying of want would have aroused some comment, so this seems unlikely.

Look at the sources. How many primary sources do we have that aren't affiliated with Henry VIII?

it's not true to say that whole hierarchy was dismantled

It is absolutely true. And until you accept and understand this - there is no point in discussing more controversial issues.

There were no bishops and no priests legally in England for about 300 years when it was illegal for them to work in the country.

many priests simply accepted the new church

How many bishops?

a significant number of monks from the dissolved monasteries became secular clergy.

Source?

wiki lists fewer than 70 catholic martyrs in england for the years 1534-1547.

Wikipedia is not a primary source.

so the evidence seems to point to a few hundred executions, and most of those were for taking up arms against the king.

Do any of the lists you cite claim to be exhaustive?

it's still completely unclear to me how anyone could come up with a figure of 70,000 or 75,000.

It's not hard at all. There was significant opposition to Henry within England, and Henry was no stranger to execution.

Is it really that hard to believe that Henry who had no qualms in executing wives would have any qualms in executing people who refused to worship him?

[C0ckney]

it doesn't seem plausible at all. very few were killed during the dissolution of the monasteries, a small handful of refuseniks. most monks, nuns and friars were given pensions. as a result of the revolt against the dissolution (the pilgrimage of grace), 216 people were executed. it's probable that some of the those who were dependants or servants of the religious houses (perhaps as many as 70,000-80,000) fell on hard times, and some may even have died. however, i would think that 70,000 people dying of want would have aroused some comment, so this seems unlikely.

it's not true to say that whole hierarchy was dismantled (and even if that were true, dismantling a hierarchy is not the same as killing those in it). many priests simply accepted the new church, and indeed a significant number of monks from the dissolved monasteries became secular clergy. wiki lists fewer than 70 catholic martyrs in england for the years 1534-1547.

so the evidence seems to point to a few hundred executions, and most of those were for taking up arms against the king. it's possible that the economic dislocation from the dissolution of the monasteries caused some more deaths, but most would have found a place in the new economic order.

it's still completely unclear to me how anyone could come up with a figure of 70,000 or 75,000.

[Ben Kenobi]

as i am very unlikely to buy that book and presume that you have read it, could you explain the reasoning it gives for that claim and the sources etc

The reasoning behind it is a couple things.

1. The dissolution of the monastaries.
2. The Act of Supremacy.
3. The dismantling of the entire Catholic hierarchy. Priests, bishops, etc.

The statement made in that article that the hierarchy was dormant for 300 years is correct.

also if the book makes the claim of 75,000, why does the article say 70,000?

It seems a reasonable figure given the length of the reign and the extent to which Henry VIII damaged the Catholic church in England. Again, I am not sure what the breakdown is in terms of areas (ie, whether or not Ireland is included). And any figure would be an estimate.

[C0ckney]

as i am very unlikely to buy that book and presume that you have read it, could you explain the reasoning it gives for that claim and the sources etc.

also if the book makes the claim of 75,000, why does the article say 70,000?

[Ben Kenobi]

Jonathan Phillips, professor of crusade history at some English college. It's something like the tenth book he's written on various aspects of the Crusades, and honestly he does his best to be fair to all sides. It's mostly a quick summary, covering everything from 1095 on, so naturally it's a bit shallow, as reviews at Amazon mention. I also checked out "Fighting for the Cross: Crusading in the Holy Land," by a different author, but that focused largely on the Crusading experience as it related to attacks on the Levant and Egypt. I.E., nothing about the Albigensians in there. I intend to pick up some more crusade histories on my next visit; the library's closed Tuesdays, so I just dropped the old books off.

Ok, those look like decent sources. I have a lot of irritation with certain members of my own family that likes to send me books on the 'crusades' for Christmas.

Oh, and between those two and Norwich's three-volume history of Byzantium, I've read three different accounts of the Fourth Crusade, from three different perspectives.

What would you recommend from the Orthodox side of it? My Greek isn't nearly as good as it ought to be. I've read some of Anna Paphylagonia or whatsis, but that's about it.

[Ben Kenobi]

which is merely an unsourced comment in an article about another subject on a catholic website. you'll have to do better than that.

The Book in review is:

Fires of Faith: Catholic England Under Mary Tudor by Eamon Duffy. Which makes the claim of 75k.

[Elok]

Jonathan Phillips, professor of crusade history at some English college. It's something like the tenth book he's written on various aspects of the Crusades, and honestly he does his best to be fair to all sides. It's mostly a quick summary, covering everything from 1095 on, so naturally it's a bit shallow, as reviews at Amazon mention. I also checked out "Fighting for the Cross: Crusading in the Holy Land," by a different author, but that focused largely on the Crusading experience as it related to attacks on the Levant and Egypt. I.E., nothing about the Albigensians in there. I intend to pick up some more crusade histories on my next visit; the library's closed Tuesdays, so I just dropped the old books off.

http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Warriors-Modern-History-Crusades/dp/B008SLSUR8

Oh, and between those two and Norwich's three-volume history of Byzantium, I've read three different accounts of the Fourth Crusade, from three different perspectives.

[C0ckney]

http://www.newoxfordreview.org/revie...=1210-gardiner

Estimates range from 75k to around 50k. I am not sure if it includes Ireland.

which is merely an unsourced comment in an article about another subject on a catholic website. you'll have to do better than that.

[Ben Kenobi]

http://www.newoxfordreview.org/reviews.jsp?did=1210-gardiner

Estimates range from 75k to around 50k. I am not sure if it includes Ireland.