I've gotten another jury summons

[Al B. Sure!]

So you really mean the lack of strong CATHOLIC power after the Reformation?

Because prior to Henry VIII's break, the Catholic Church was ridiculously powerful. Cardinal Wolsey basically ran the country for Henry and Henry was named Defender of the Faith.

So you think the Reformation came out of thin air? That it was not built upon the foundations of a long tradition of anti-clericalism, including the Lollard heresy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_reformation

The English Reformation followed a different course from the Reformation in continental Europe. There had long been a strong strain of anti-clericalism and England had already given rise to the Lollard movement of John Wycliffe, which played an important part in inspiring the Hussites in Bohemia.

Anti-clericalism did not emerge out of thin air from Henry VIII's divorce. If the Church was as powerful as you claim, the Reformation would not have happened in England since it would not have caught on so quickly with the majority of English.

Very rarely in history is a ruler's conversion truly the shift in a nation's religious direction, as much as it may seem like it from a simplified view of history. The seeds of Protestantism and Protestantism itself were already spreading like wildfire in Tudor England, before Henry's divorce, just as Rome had been becoming increasingly Christian even before Constantine's conversion or the Rus increasingly Orthodox before Vladimir the Great converted. These supposed epochal breaks were not really at a ruler's mere whim.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Are you seriously, seriously trying to state that anti-clericalism didn't exist in Catholic countries as well? Hell, Savonarola came from ITALY!

[Al B. Sure!]

Are you seriously, seriously trying to state that anti-clericalism didn't exist in Catholic countries as well? Hell, Savonarola came from ITALY!

It never became popular among either the masses of Italians/Spanish or the power brokers. The same can not be said of anti-clericalism in Germany, Scandinavia, England, and the Netherlands.

How do you think it spread to become so dominant in certain countries in only 50 years?



Any aspiring Protestants were quickly stamped out in Italy and Spain because they had no power base either among the powers that were or the people. By contrast, Protestantism spread rapidly and was overwhelmingly popular in what would become Protestant Europe, stemming from a long tradition of anti-clericalism from both Germanic princes and the general population.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Btw, I wonder if you actually read more of your link aside from what you wanted to read?

Yet, at a popular level, religion in England was still in a state of flux. Following a brief Roman Catholic restoration during the reign of Mary 1553–1558, a loose consensus developed during the reign of Elizabeth I, though this point is one of considerable debate among historians. Yet it is this "Elizabethan Religious Settlement" which largely formed Anglicanism into a distinctive church tradition.

It was not something that "caught on quickly" in England. In fact there was huge opposition to dismantling the monasteries, especially in Northern England. And, to Thomas Cromwell and Ann Bolyn's chagrin, the Anglican Church quickly became very Catholic in its Liturgy as opposed to being more Reformed or Lutheran (as it is teased in the US - EpiscoPOPEian).

[Imran Siddiqui]

It never became popular among either the masses of Italians/Spanish or the power brokers.

There, you go... the proper word is "power brokers". The prices and rulers of northern Germany, Scandinavia, had no interest in being ruled from Rome anymore. It helped that Lutheranism, especially, was very favorable to having the ruler of the state being the head of the Church in their own state. Also, the confiscation of the monasteries led to quite a bit of money.

The people had been dissatisfied with the Papacy since the Babylonian Captivity (the Avignon Papacy), in Italy and Spain as much as in Germany or Sweden. However, the rulers of Italy, Spain, and France were closer to the Papacy than the more northern European states.

The decision of which countries left Catholic Europe and which stated was a result of the leaders in each realm.

Heck, the proof of this is France, which is considered a country with a strong Catholic Church, but it could have gone either way depending on what the French King wanted to do - he allowed for tolerance, but then thought the Protestants (the Huguenots) were being too disruptive and viciously persecuted them.

[Al B. Sure!]

Even if we were to accept they were not popular movements (which I think is laughable given the speed at which the masses became Protestant, the history of popular heresies before Luther which were always grass-roots in nature, and the generally congregationalist structure of Protestant churches), it does not change the fact that Protestant Europe, especially England, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia, has diverged significantly in political persuasion from Iberia and her former colonies. Are we only disagreeing on when the roots of this divergence first took hold?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think it's laughable to assume that anti-clericalism wasn't popular in states considered to be strongly Catholic. If no one cared about Savonarola, he wouldn't have had to be publicly executed. And we are disagreeing on whether "strong clerical power" had much to do with anything, re: style of government preferred. I mean France had strong clerical power until the late 1700s, but is very committed to Republicanism today.

Also, you know... Germany... uh... Nazis? And prior to that a pretty strong monarchy headed up by Kaiser Wilhelm and Otto von Bismarck, his Chancellor - the only reason they gave that up was because they lost a war.

[Al B. Sure!]

I think it's laughable to assume that anti-clericalism wasn't popular in states considered to be strongly Catholic. If no one cared about Savonarola, he wouldn't have had to be publicly executed. And we are disagreeing on whether "strong clerical power" had much to do with anything, re: style of government preferred. I mean France had strong clerical power until the late 1700s, but is very committed to Republicanism today.

Also, you know... Germany... uh... Nazis? And prior to that a pretty strong monarchy headed up by Kaiser Wilhelm and Otto von Bismarck, his Chancellor - the only reason they gave that up was because they lost a war.

It's not the sole variable. It's just one of several. I mentioned others in my post.

Or you don't think there are social, economic, religious, etc. variables that influence the development of liberal democracies vice dictatorships?

[Imran Siddiqui]

The large estate thing with respect to England was also shot down .

That was one of the reasons why the death duties were so high in the early 1900s - to force old large landed estates to sell off property.

And the economy and power structure WERE focused on those landed estates - but England was, thankfully, very quick to industrialize, mostly due to low tariffs.

[Ban Kenobi]

But the economy and power structure were not centered on large landowners to the extent of other nations. England had a flourishing middle class in the Middle Ages and was a trading power.

The city states in northern Italy had a flourishing middle class and were trading powers yet Protestantism did not take hold. I don't see much of a connection with the plutocracy vs. aristocracy slider in EU3.

[Al B. Sure!]

The large estate thing with respect to England was also shot down .

That was one of the reasons why the death duties were so high in the early 1900s - to force old large landed estates to sell off property.

And the economy and power structure WERE focused on those landed estates - but England was, thankfully, very quick to industrialize, mostly due to low tariffs.

Oh so we're just going to ignore the end of the demesne system, charter fairs, the development of the English merchant class in the 15th century, the cloth industry, etc. etc. We're just going to act like England was a feudal agricultural society with the equivalent of a hacienda system until the late 18th century

[Al B. Sure!]

The city states in northern Italy had a flourishing middle class and were trading powers yet Protestantism did not take hold. I don't see much of a connection with the plutocracy vs. aristocracy slider in EU3.

I never once said that a flourishing middle class is the cause for Protestantism.

What I said was that multiple factors combined (including a strong middle class, a merchant economy, anti-clericalism, etc.) influence the political direction of a nation towards capitalist democracy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

How many haciendas were in Florence, Milan?

And when exactly do you think the demesne system ended in England?!

[Ban Kenobi]

I never once said that a flourishing middle class is the cause for Protestantism.

What I said was that multiple factors combined (including a strong middle class, a merchant economy, anti-clericalism, etc.) influence the political direction of a nation towards capitalist democracy.

I think you might be mixing up correlation and causation here. For example, widespread literacy could foster a middle class and make people more likely to question the authority of the church, and encourage the development of capitalism and democracy.

[Al B. Sure!]

How many haciendas were in Florence, Milan?

I don't think you understand my argument because that question isn't relevant. Northern Italy has always been a liberalizing and 'republican' influence on Italy as a whole. Now compare and contrast to Southern Italy which was an agriculturally-centered reactionary region.