Alternate history: what if the Spanish Armada had succeeded?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Don’t be so sure it would have ended so well. Look at France, their nobility tried to make the country Calvinist, did nit succeed. But the Church became very sick for the next 200 years or so. It saw itself as primarily a support for the monarchy and dependent on the monarchy to survive. No one took the faith seriously. Hence the revelotuinists in the 1790s truly saw it as part and parcel if the ancein regime. Their big mistake was its persecution, but they never would have guessed either a) anyone would care about them taking control if the Church or b) that the persecution would (as often happens) revive the faith. So finally there was a renewal if the Church there during the 19th century, but never did it regain it’s glory (word used in the truest sense).

Hard to imagine that the noblility who had been made rich in England off the reformation would have ever returned truly to the faith. As it was, the Oxford movement started a return to Catholicism that, in a sense, has saved what’s left of Christianity in England (more Catholics attend Sunday mass in that country than members if CoE attend their services).

Also, just as we find glory in the early persecution of the Church and recognize the persecution actually help build the Church, so, after long years, can we see the glory and strengthening of the Irish Church due to it’s persecution .
 
Harry Turtledove, RUled Britannia

complete with Shakespeare as a revolutionary :crazy_face:
 
I always wanted to write a sci fi book about the Spanish being the dominant power that settled America. I had the turning point with the Spanish Armada defeating the English Navy and crushing any hopes of England becoming a super power. But then it came time for the Spanish to rule the New World (researching the subject). I looked to the other countries Spain had established (Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela, Argentina, Peru, and the list goes on) and their colonies did not have much success. So what did a USA look like run by Spain? It looked like South America and Central America. Separate countries run by people who wanted power to control others and make the country in their image. Not very much solidarity to form a country for everyone. Today, a lot of the South and Central American countries are doing well but it took the a while (with many conflicts) to get their governments running well. And even though there are many side effects that I don’t like from the English creating our government, we are a people who are living in a fairly decent society.
 
If you look at the former British colonies, they have been far more prosperous than those of other countries.

I’m convinced that the deposit of the Common Law and the notion of the Rights of Enghlishmen drove this–they laid a foundation for stability and success. (They also had a lot to do with England itself developing differently than the continent . . .)
 
I agree with you on the English being very successful in creating an organized government that work for most people. But what I’m not too crazy about is “rugged individualism” where everybody should be able to lift themselves up by their own bootstraps. Originally in our country, people got a piece of land, built a house and lived off the land or they own a small business that supplied those living off the land in one way or another. In the cities though, companies started springing that needed workers. The owners paid their workers but supply and demand started kicking in and prices of a lot of stuff started going up. Owners of companies couldn’t pay workers the amount the need to buy goods or they would go broke.

Government did not catch up with this and still believed in “rugged individualism” and they still do which is why this protestant philosophy needs to be updated in our society so all can get a decent wage and live off the land on their own.
 
hvizsgyak said:
But what I’m not too crazy about is “rugged individualism” where everybody should be able to lift themselves up by their own bootstraps.
Click to expand...
It’s not so much the “rugged individualism” but the notion of the dignity of the individual and that the possessed rights in the face of the king–that is, the “Rights of Englishmen”.

Unlike most of Western Europe, England was never fully subjugated by Rome, and kept notions of freedom that were lost elsewhere as the absolute military dictatorship surpassed them. It leads directly to US notions of limited government, and rights.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top