Ancient and ArchaeologyΜύ permalink
North South Divide
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by OrganettoBoy (U3734614) on Tuesday, 26th September 2006
Why, in general terms did the northern half of Western Europe become protestant whilst the southern half remained catholic?
Was it just a simple matter of geography in the easier communications with Rome?
Or was it dynastic: the southern ruling elite decided to remain catholic, the northern decided not to?
Were there national temperaments that influenced it either way?
Was it just coincidence or other reasons? -
Message 2
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 26th September 2006
Organetto,
very interesting question and sparking as you said many questions. I, living in the former Low Countries, where a lot was fought about the "religious question", am also interested in it. See for a good work (and perhaps some explanations about your questions about this) to:"The Dutch Revolt" from Geoffrey Parker.
The worst confrontation however was in the later Germany during the Thirty Years War.
However in the South as in France you had nine wars of religion and the country was also nearly wrecked by it. Only Spain and Italy in my knowledge were that Roman-Catholic that they had not inter-religious struggles in their countries it-self.
And we don't even speak from the British Isles...
After all the Calvinism started near Switzerland and the Lutheranism in Wittenberg (later Germany).
Organetto, this thread had perhaps been better on the Wars and Conflicts, but now that it is here...we better can...
I am so engaged for the moment in other threads that I haven't spare time to answer and to do research on this one, but I promise you from the moment I have time...as I am so interested in it too...
And, Organetto, welcome to the boards and warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 3
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 26th September 2006
Protestantism, between its emergence and the height of its success in terms of initial conversion, never really left the cultural milieu that had spawned it - the network of Northern European communities (and especially the universtities) who were amenable and willing to aid its proselytizing influences. Even then, it took some political coincidences and decisions - few of which had anything to do with doctrinal debate - to preserve the new movement's initial impetus and help it reach the point demographically where it would prove impossible to eradicate as a simple heresy (though this was of course tried). Henry VIII's part in this when it came to England is a case in point, but there are other examples throughout Europe where the local potentate's political ambitions (rather than his spiritual beliefs) greased the wheels of its advance.
For that reason the best answer to your question is that there was at from the outset a geo-political pattern to be discerned in Protestantism's spread, and indeed in the forces that were amassed in the attempt to curtail it. One pointer to this is the existence of both Ireland and Poland as predominantly catholic states. In both cases political exigencies that pertained at just the same time as protestantism was on a great sweep through the royal courts of northern Europe meant that neither country was amenable to conversion. The Irish if anything became even more devoutly catholic through this phase as it dovetailed neatly with a growing nationalist opposition to increasingly pervasive English rule at the same time as that rule became a protestant one, and Poland, forced to obsess with matters to its east for most of this time, found itself catholic almost by default. It bucked the trend across Europe with the Warsaw Confederation's 1573 act which, instead of forcing any version of the faith on its people ensured a freedom of all faiths within its borders. While this did not guarantee Poland would be free from religious strife it took the contention out of the political arena, and unsurprisingly the majority of the population chose to stick with the status quo.
Your other assumption about closeness to Rome with regard to ensuring countries remained catholic is also important - not simply because of the geographical distances involved, but because of the many interwoven treaties and alliances with the papacy at their heart, and the ease with which these alliances could be enforced with military might should parties renege on them. Like in the north of the continent however the southern states also had exceptions to the rule, and the geographical areas where both these spheres of influence conjoined ended up as battlefields for many years to come. -
Message 4
Posted by IrHist (U4245554) on Saturday, 30th September 2006
Interesting post NM. Reading about the Holy Cross dispute at the mo: the modern after-thought of the religious wars of yore.
Theres an interesting what-if though: what if england had remained Catholic, how would the relationship between it and Ireland have developed? -
Message 5
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Saturday, 30th September 2006
Probably not much differently in terms of keeping Ireland within the jurisdiction and economic control of the British body politic, I feel. The colonisation of Ireland did not begin as a religious issue and nor did it end as one. Religious difference played no small role in how it was conducted, especially from Cromwell through to Catholic emancipation, but the impetus for domination was never derived from religious motives, I feel, and the impetus for rebellion was never paramountly expressed in religious terms either. The whole experience of subjugation into the British hegemony might have been a little more benign in terms of repressive and oppressive legislation, the six counties of Ulster might never have been separated politically as they were, and a force like the United Irishmen - originating in the middle and upper middle classes of the day - might have enjoyed critically more support at the time they chose to try to force a break from English rule, but essentially the dynamic of colonisation would not have been altered substantially, at least not as long as Ireland could be perceived as an otherwise unmanageable and potentially dangerous neighbour in terms of its influence on English affairs.
-
Message 6
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 2nd October 2006
Nordmann,
thank you for this as always excellent reply. I think that I understand in each paragraph your drift. I prepared in mind an in-depth answer as to prove that I understood what you said and to add my own thoughts.
But with all my "here and there" replies, it is nearing midnight British time already and closing of the boards.
I was thinking a long the lines of "cuius regio eius religio". The worldly authorities weren't at first not prepared to tackle the ground swell of Protestantism and to appease the mass movements, which were not easy to control and these mass movements were attacking together with the church the worldly powers, which lived till then in a symbiose with that church. But after a while they sought to accomodate as a Charles V with the peace of Augsburg and a Henry IV (Paris vaut bien une messe) with the Edict of Nantes. But already many of the nobility had seen the opportunities of this new situations and saw possiblities to enrich them on the back of the former church and to gain might against others, who stuck to the old church.
I thought that it was that, what I saw in your articles as about Ireland. Calvinism and Lutheranism were the sparks, which set the process in motion, but there were many other processes intermingled in it as for instance nationalism, greed of the nobility, separatism, sticking to their nation building (as for instance a Philip II? and a "Louis XIV?)and so on. Or with other words many took the opportunity from this instable situation to seek for their own agenda?
Nordmann, have to line my thoughts about it but it will be for tomorrow.
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 7
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 3rd October 2006
Organetto,
"was it a simply matter of geography in the easier communications with Rome?"
It has to do with geography IMO but more with the geographical spread of Calvinism and Lutheranism. From the H.R.E Lutheranism spread to Northern Germany, Sweden, Finland, Scotland, England. Southern Germany, Spain and Italy resisted more. IMO and that will be the lead in my argumentation that the centra of power were in the South and the northern lands were at the outskirts of power. Thus from the very beginning the movement supporting on the common people and the mobs came in conflict with the existing powers, which were till then in a coexistence with the Roman Church.
Calvinism too spread from Switzerland (is it coincidence that this was a political island in Europe?) into France were it led in the second halve of the 16th century to religious wars. IMO while the power was mostly predominant in Roman-Catholic hands it was a big clash but at the end it was won by this faction.
During Charles V reign Lutheranism gained also from its powerbasis in the HRE into the Low Countries and Charles tried to contain the damage in the Peace of Augsburg of 1555 with the principle of "cuius regio, eius religio" (whose region, whose religion), but it was IMO a recognition of the de facto reality of those Princes, who saw political gain in springing on the bandwaggon of Lutheranism against those remaining in the old Church. And again it were the seeds for from 1609 the division of the HRE of German Nation into two hostile alliances: the Northern Protestant Union and the Southern Catholic League. Surprisingly there were numerous Protestant sects in Italy too, but as expected Catholicism remained predominantly.
Also to illustrate my point of view that worldly rulers used the conflict for their personal gains and adhered to such or such faction out of opportunism: The King of Denmark joined the Protestants in 1625, but was more interested in territorial gain. Religion to take a backsit, as the Thirty Year's War became a war between warring states. Cardinal Richelieu entered the war, regardless of the religon of the alliance (allied to Sweden if I remember it well).
The peace of Prague of 1635 between the emperor Ferdinand II of the HRE, and the religious conflict settled, but still as it wasn't a fully religious conflict, continuous fight by the intervention of Spain and later France till the Peace of Westphalia (Munster) in 1648.
From France out Calvinism entered the Low Countries with the "Beeldenstorm" at Poperinge. From there on it superseded Lutheranism in the Netherlands. And here as I think Nordmann explained it for Ireland, the religious revolt was coupled with the revulsion at the policies of Charles V and later his son Philip II. I mean¨Protestantism is the ignition, but it is soon coupled with all kinds of other political issues.
Counter-Reformation (from the South!), had also a military and secular side as Catholic kings and princes tried to regain territory conquered by the Protestants and simultaneous by expanding their own power and influence.
Especially Calvinism combined church and state in order to enforce moral and doctrinal conformity. It was constant in the politics of the Dutch Republic, after the Prince of Orange was sprung on the bandwaggon of Protestantism/Calvinism.
IMO and you have to correct me Nordmann if you don't agree, The English Civil War was also a reflection of this but there as the reverse of the Dutch? Parliament versus monarchy as Puritans versus Anglicans? And in England it was never a fully Protestant movement, while it was always intertwingled with the policies of the kings supporting their own Anglicanism? Nordmann?
To conclude, Organetto, I think that it as to do indeed with geography, but because the centres of power were in the South and when the divide came, sparked in the North in the HRE of German Nation and in Switzerland, it was easier to expand to the fringes of the centres of power as the smaller countries of the North and Schotland. Even a wealthy nation as the Low Countries were by their dependance from the worldpower Spain also at the fringes seen from the South. And the Irish, Nordmann, also supported from the South with France? Against the domination of England? Thus nationalism?
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 8
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 4th October 2006
IMO and you have to correct me Nordmann if you don't agree, The English Civil War was also a reflection of this but there as the reverse of the Dutch? Parliament versus monarchy as Puritans versus Anglicans? And in England it was never a fully Protestant movement, while it was always intertwingled with the policies of the kings supporting their own Anglicanism? Nordmann?
Μύ
It depends very much on what you mean by 'fully protestant', Paul. By virtue of the manner in which protestantism was introduced from the top down in England it is indeed difficult to square it with Lutheran or Calvinist theory, which were both in their purest sense an intellectual objection to the Roman church and its doctrine. Henry and his Tudor successors as heads of the church in England had little or no interest in theological debate on the matter (they left that to the churchmen) but with the exception of Mary all held a strong political line that the separation of England's church from Roman influence be absolute. Interestingly, while later Stuart monarchs held personal allegiances of different strengths with catholicism, none attempted to disrupt or redefine that aloofness from Rome (though many feared that they would), and Cromwell's brief and futile attempt to impose his own version of Calvinism on the populace showed that this distant but ambivalent relationship was really just how the majority of the population liked it.
While it is true therefore that many on the parliamentarian side held strong protestant views (extreme by English standards), and those on the royalist side held views bordering on a return to catholicism (extremely so on the part of many of the king's Irish supporters, for example), the civil war was never really about religious doctrine. Both sides instinctively knew that if they pushed that issue to the forefront they would automatically lose allies. In fact the whole thing therefore led to several later misunderstandings which one could cynically say had been purposefully engendered in order to retain support at crucial stages of the civil war and as a result some shades of puritan/presbyterian/Knoxian opinion found themselves marginalised and even penalised under the commonwealth, just as extreme catholic aspirations took a knock after the restoration.
It is tempting therefore to dismiss the royal version of protestantism in England as a watered-down or 'compromise' version. It might indeed have been unique in a European context but that was because it simply placed the political relevance of the movement to the forefront from the beginning and downplayed the theological arguments that the split from Rome engendered. One might even argue therefore that it was a brilliant (or at least fortuitously) pragmatic solution to the division that ravaged other communities in Europe with a vengeance and which left legacies of division and hatred lasting generations. While some elements in England would never be satisified with the status quo again, it is undeniable that the country was one of the first to place the religious issue firmly behind it politically, and was also one of the first to successfully reintegrate its catholic and other religious minorities. But one should not doubt that England is first and foremost a protestant nation, or that its albeit unique version of protestantism in Anglicanism is liable to be supplanted without serious social repercussions. Indeed, if a prime objective of Calvinism was to marry church and state to ensure social conformity then the English succeeded in that principle better and faster than many Calvinist countries. -
Message 9
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 4th October 2006
Nordmann,
thank you very much for this excellent reply. Where do you get all that time to make all tose sophisticated replies on these boards? On each of my replies I am sweating to compose it in a coherent way (many times fail to do that...smile) and "en plus" from time to time looking in a dictionary for the appropriate word. I know Dutch is my mothertongue and English is a foreign language, but I am nearly sure that I would struggle the same way in Dutch...
One of my former bosses (have to agree it was a "civil engineer" (5 years university) in chemistry. Don't know the equivalence in English? In German it is a "Diplom Ingenieur") could write at ease some difficult "essays" in a very short time and in a coherent way. We all envied him, while we, to construct a similar message, were struggling to say it in a good text and we needed much more time...
And so I was always happy if I could find a fault in his reasoning and could prove it...(smile). But he was that honest that he, when he was wrong he immediately agreed to his fault. Hmm, immediately, is perhaps a bit too euphemistic...
It is perhaps due to universitary studies? Or it is just a gift that only a few possess?
Nordmann, about your last paragraph: Is that unique version of protestantism in Anglicanism, religious issue firmly behind it politically and was also one of the first to successfully reintegrate its catholic and other religious minorities one of its plus-points in its ascendency to worldpower?
Now thinking about it, after all what I read in Jonathan Israel's book about the Dutch history, is that not also one of the many reasons as in my thread: why the British prevailed and not the Dutch?
Thanks again and warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 10
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 4th October 2006
...one of its plus-points in its ascendency to worldpower?
Μύ
I suppose it doesn't hurt not to have such a domestic distraction as religious warfare in one's own backyard when one is embarking on world domination. But seriously, I have a suspicion myself that the relative quickness with which England managed to accommodate internal dissenters stood it in great stead when accommodating other diverse cultures and beliefs as it became the power centre of a vast empire. I can see parallels with both the Roman and Ottoman empires in that respect - both of which were incredibly successful in their day and both of which practised a policy of relative tolerance towards those they subsumed with regard to their religion (but not any resultant disobedience, mind you). It is also the root of the reputation that England has long enjoyed as a tolerant land in which diversity and eccentricity were considered advantages rather than hindrances. As an Irishman I might not be too convinced that it fully deserves it, but it is true to say that there does exist an essential sense of 'fairness' in the Englishman's make-up that other countries for whom the principle is enshrined in constitutional form find hard to emulate. For every bigot one finds several opponents to their bias, and even when society as a whole has turned quite anti-Irish in its expression there have always been found English voices protesting when that has led to unfair treatment.
I know that England is not the only tolerant country and that it is riddled with contradictions in that respect anyway that will probably never be really sorted out. But in the context of the discussion it is only pertinent to point out that while the religious issue might have played a role in forming that national character (and I detest that term normally), it also helped frame the legislative and gubernorial processes that eased the transition to empire.
Thanks for the compliment re the scribbling, Paul. I can only say that it is a great thing that this site has an 'edit' function that one can avail of prior to submitting one's diatribes! -
Message 11
Posted by ElistanOnVacation (U3933150) on Thursday, 5th October 2006
Paul & Nordman,
If I may interject into this worthy debate with a few observations of my own...
Firstly, it is significant that Protestantism and its spread is closely associated with city-states, both in HRE and latterly in Switzerland and the Netherlands. The reformation was very much driven by an urban experience of expanded literacy and communication that facilitated the involvement of a broader demographic than heretofore possible. Catholicism, in this model, was very much the religion of a ruralised society, disparate and disconnected, structured in the classic pyramid of fuedalism with the lowest cells of village isolated from each other. Catholicism, especially Augustinian catholicism, emphasised the exclusivity of knowledge to the learned few.
Luther was not the first to express such criticisms of the hierarchical dominance of the medieval church, indeed many of the religious aspects of the Protestant reformation had been foreshadowed by Occam, Biel, Groote, and Hus. They, however, lacked the means of dissemination of the information, in short the printed word. The spread of protestant cannot be seperated from the spread of the press, and since it was a cash-heavily investment driven industry that involved the centralisation of a number of skills in a common location it was, perforece, an urban development. Luther's work spread across Europe's cities at a phenomenonal rate, one source stating thatbetween 1517 and 1520, Luther’s thirty publications sold well over 300,000 copies, making one of the world's first bestsellers. Controversy sells!
It is significant, in light of the above, that protestantism didn't manage to penetrate beyond the Alps into the city-states of Northern Italy, the fount of the classics and the birthing place of the renaissance that gave birth to it. An answer to that is slightly more complex than merely geographical location and can be found, I would posit, in the experience of Desiderus Erasmus. Eramus, like Luther and More, was disillusioned with the hierarchy of the catholic Church. His work 'In Praise of Folly' did much to lay the groundwork for Luther's 95 theses, some commentators (Martin Dorp, in particular) almost seeing him as some sort of John the Baptist to Luther's Christ (though naturally such blamphemous allusions would not have been uttered directly). Yet Erasmus remained loyal to the Church, to the Rome-cental focus of its institution, despite rejecting an appointment in the Holy See as it was too corrupt. Whay was that?
I would posit that to understand that we must look back to the legacy of the Roman Empire and the aftermath of its withdrawal. Most telling for us in this direstion is Paul's homeland of the Lowlands. South of the Rhine, the 'romanised' section, remained catholic whilst the nortern section embraced and indulged every variance of the new outlooks that the release from allowed. Those territories whose bureaucracy had been imperial when the church became embedded in the society invariably remained within the church, and on some sort of social unconscious level could not envisage otherwise.
As ever, exemptions prove the rule, so let me deal with the most glaring first off, namely Henry VIII, defender of the Faith, etc, etc,. Henry VIII did not embrace the protestant reformation. In fact, he never declared for Lutheranism or any of its deriviatives, or ever refer to himself as anything other than Catholic. What he did do was deny the papal superiority to temporal princes. That's all. He founded the English Catholic Church, with himself as head. This seem like splitting hairs, but it is significant as the Church's influence on temporal affairs had frequently over the previous few centuries quite often come to the fore in such debates. Henry VIII's stance should be seen in light of Barbarossa'a or the Ghibelline faction's political stance rather than in Luther's theological justification for papal opposition.
The protestantising of the English nation was matter for Henry's son, heavily influenced by the eexecutors of Henry's will. The protestant upbringing of the young prince and of those selected to advise him is significant, and, again I posit, was done to hinder the political ambitions of the strong catholic lobby to the north and west of the country which would have prefered to tie England back to papal subserviance. Within this context the recusancy of Ireland, and specifically the pale-ists is significant as a conservative backlash against an increase in big government. The religious question, from the perspecitive of the old hiberno-norman and even anglo-hibernan families settled in Ireland, was seen as part and parcel of the Tudor encroachment on their political and civil liberties. Within 'English' Ireland catholicism was maintained in defiance of the centralisation of the tudor political machine.
One of the quirks in relation to reformation on these isles is that, despite the fact that Calvinism spread like wildfire through Scotland (again a non-romanised territory) no one seems to hve attempted a similar endeavour in Ireland amongst the Gaels. One can understand the relutance of the gaels to adhere to a government decree driven Anglicanism, but one would have felt that they would have been ripe for the plucking for a zwinglist or calvinist minister. The difficulty, however, lay in the lack of urban centres dominated by the indigenuous irish. Protestantism, as stated above, needs urbanity and the vernacular litercy that comes with urban mercantilism for it to flourish. In that regard Ireland was fallow ground. The urban communities were stubbornly catholic in opposition to the state, and the natural audience for the urban preachings of calvinist minister were disparate argicultural folk, ripe pickings for catholicism's structures and instutions.
With regard to Poland and the east, i wouyld not wish to stepon josef's toes as regard to its mainteance of the catholic faith, but suffice to say that its demographic and political organisation would seem to facilitate the ancien regime model of catholic europe more. I am sure that individuals more au fait with the region could elucidate more on the perculiarities of that regions experiences.
In summary, for this has been an overly long diatribe, protestantism's success relied on urbanisation and a willingness to break from Rome. Those areas that were ex-empire seem to have had greater difficulty in achieving the latter, with only Switzerland as best as I can figure being an ex-roman region that embraced the reformation to any degree, and yet it also provides the Swiss Guard. England's case is the most significant (and i haven't even touched the vacillation between the tudor offspring before Elizabeth's Blairite 'third way' solution) as, whilst beyond the continent, it managed to contain so many competing traditions. I would argue that England (and I emphasis England over Britain) did not become entirely comfortable with its protestantism until well into the eighteenth century.
Elistan -
Message 12
Posted by OrganettoBoy (U3734614) on Thursday, 5th October 2006
Thanks for all these replies, fascinating.
Just one point Elistan, but weren't Engand and Wales part of the Roman Empire for almost 400 years (I must admit to not knowing how long France was Roman (500 years?) or Switzerland for that matter). Or have you excluded this because of the Angles, Jutes, Saxons were never Romanised? Did other ex-Roman provinces experience such invasions yet remained catholic? -
Message 13
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Friday, 6th October 2006
Elistan and Nordmann,
I wanted even from yesterday to answer to both your excellent replies, but yesterday the whole evening "on visit" and today spent my whole evening with messages as to Thomas about history writing, to Darklight about houseprices in Britain and the capitalistic system, to Henrylee about the US and it's merits after all (with some side attack to some Leftists). And some other minor "insults"
Thank you again both for your as always in-depth and reasoned answers and see you tomorrow. Oops, in the evening again "feast with dinner" certainly till 9 o'clock PM.
Warm regards to both,
Paul. -
Message 14
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 9th October 2006
Addendum message 13.
Nordmann and Elistan,
have still not had time to reply to your interesting but difficult to answer questions. I answered already to the more easier one of you, Elistan on the History Hub. Spent my whole evening yesterday by replying to Julie (Wollemi) about the British empire building. Today a difficult reply to Thomas about "history writing" and "opinions" about "moral" concepts.
Also research about some trivial stuff as Belgian beer...
Warm regards to both and I hope to have the time tomorrow to line up my grey material to give a "coherent" survey of what I think about your two messages,
Paul. -
Message 15
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 10th October 2006
Addendum to message 14.
Nordmann abd Elistan,
this evening again a difficult reply to Thomas about "history writing" and "opinions" about "moral" concepts.
Also a rather short research and reply to Henvell about the Celts (on this board).
Hope for tomorrow...
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 16
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 12th October 2006
Nordmann and Elistan,
I think that you both know why I wasn't able to go further with the conversation here on this board.
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 17
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Friday, 13th October 2006
Nordmann,
yes as you said, the religious issue firmly behind the political one: the pragmatic approach to use it in empire building. As the Dutch regents wanted to do, but they were always counteracted by the different "William" "Stadhouders", who (although in reality they didn't believe in Protestantism) relied heavely on the rather sectarian Calvinists for their political aims. So they divided the Dutch society, many times in troubled times, when the need for unity was urgent. From what I now read of English/British history from Henry VIII nearly the whole society supported the political issue rather than the religious one? The most important thing: What was good for the nation was good for the King, Cromwell, Parliament alike?
France for instance: Louis XIV: revocation of the Edict of Nantes, only Roman-Catholics were allowed to colonize the new acquired territories, worthful in trade and industry Huguenots driven out by the King's policy...
Was it a self-amplifying effect in Britain's empire building? Not sectarian because the political need for the nation building and because of that empire building an always greater need for pragmatism? And when there was a King not pragmatic enough they beheaded him? Although you could say the same for France, but they didn't it that way? Perhaps you are right about the English "fairness"? Perhaps the same "fairness" in the Dutch Republic? But there it was toppled by the succeeding "Williams"?
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 18
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Friday, 13th October 2006
Elistan,
now reading it again and again to understand the reasoning better I have even greater esteem for your thought-provoking reply.
Yes fully agreed about the printing-press and the need of "cities" for the infrastructure of it.
Yes, I agree that it had also to do with the Roman legacy. As in your example of the Low Countries, you had indeed the Union of Utrecht with the less romanized provinces and the Union of Atrecht with the more romanized ones, after only a few years after the Pacification of Ghent, trying to unite the whole former Low Countries. Is it coincidence?
But I think that it had also to make with sheer military might from this or that monarch or prince. I think that Nordmann alluded to it in his first message in this thread. In fact wasn't it not of the bancruptcy of the Spanish state and the Spanish "fury" of the soldiers not paid in Antwerp...? but in other cases with a good general the Northern provinces were only held by their "waterlinie". And here also was "revulsion" for the Spanish "occupator" as important as the religious question in the whole Low Countries. It could be that under favourite circumstances, the whole Low Countries came under Spanish domination again and that by "obliged" pragmatism the Spanish allowed a certain: whose city, whose religion. The same perhaps in the Thirty Years War? An intermingling of the religious factors with the regional political affinities? And as the might of the Roman legacy related countries was in the South, I agree to you about the South embracing the Roman-Catholic faith and perhaps encountering the Northern Protestants in the central countries as in France and the patchwork of Germany. Poland then a coincidence of the situation, which could have been also have happened in the Low Countries? Hope, Jozef can give us more information?
As I understand you , you agree to Nordmann's theory about Ireland. But in your opinion: not Protestant because of the lack of big cities.
Thanks Elistan and Nordmann for both your explanations about England.
Warm regards,
Paul.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Μύto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.