Trafalgar 200
On 21 October 1805, Admiral Horatio Lord Nelson was killed at the moment of his greatest victory - the destruction of the combined French and Spanish fleet at the Battle of Trafalgar. 200 years on, revisit the fleets, the follies and the firepower.
On the 200th anniversary of Nelson's greatest battle, find out how it changed Europe forever.
A solider made his nation stand out in modern history and mmade his fellow citizens proud.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/
- Re: Trafalgar 200posted on 10/22/2005
这是另一篇关于Trafalgar的。
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/051024/24nelson.htm "England expects that every man will do his duty."
我还记得Russell Crowe在Master and Commander里和手下谈论Lord Nelson的情景。
- posted on 11/04/2005
"England expects that every man will do his duty."
He did not say "England expects every English man will do his duty", instead he means "England expects every man (in the wolrd) will do his duty (for the interests of England)".
I think that explains Angla-Saxon traidtion of the admiration of "Leadership" and "Management". :)
特拉法加海战两百年纪念随想
英伦随笔
BBC中文网记者 立行
"胜利号"现在停泊在英国朴茨茅斯军港
特拉法加海战适逢两百周年,包括英国女王在内的王室成员全部出动,在全英国各地主持了各类盛大庆典和仪式。在周末,英国各地举行了6千多个形式各异的相关活动。两百年前的这场海战为什么值得如此庆祝?
这已经不是英国今年头一回庆祝特拉法加海战两百周年了。实际上,一年以来,英国各地已经为此举办了各种形式的大小型庆典。特别是今年6月份,英国举行了盛大的航海表演,邀请了来自36个国家的150多艘海军军舰和老式船舶参加。
这样长时间大规模的庆祝,其隆重程度远远超过其他事件,比如女王的诞辰日(也就算英国的官方国庆日)。实际上,它就是英国的一个国庆日,因为两百年前的这一天,奠定了后来的英国历史。
传奇性的历史
1805年10月21日,英国海军上将纳尔逊率领舰队,在特拉法加海战中一举击败拿破仑的法西联合舰队。
这场海战的发生地特拉法加海域位于西班牙南部,是大西洋和地中海之间海上要道。当时拿破仑已经在欧洲大陆屡战屡胜,显得势不可挡,他命令法西联合舰队从西班牙的加迪斯地区进入地中海,协助他进攻奥地利。
纳尔逊主动出击,以少胜多,出奇制胜,成为国际海军史的一段传奇。当时纳尔逊抓住战机,他率领27艘舰只,在特拉法加海域等待,和由33艘军舰组成的法西舰队一决胜负。纳尔逊从战斗开始,就大胆采用了一反当时海军常规的战术,率领12艘军舰,冒着敌人密集的炮火,插入敌军舰队中心,一举分割了法西舰队的首尾。
更令这段历史具有英雄史诗般传奇的是,纳尔逊本人率领旗舰"胜利号"在大战中一马当先,以"擒贼先擒王"的手法,直扑并重创法军旗舰,并与前来护驾的法舰"可畏号"进行了生死搏斗,最终打垮了"可畏号",奠定了法西舰队的败局。
这场海战改变了欧洲历史进程,它彻底粉碎了拿破仑入侵英国之梦,并开始了英国对拿破仑法国的海上封锁。在长远来说,它也确立了后来一百年里的英国海上霸权,使大英帝国成为有史以来世界最大的帝国。
特拉法加海战不仅影响了海军史,也深刻影响了各民族的历史和心理。19世纪崛起的日本海军就是学习了纳尔逊的战术,在对马海峡打垮了一度称霸太平洋的俄国海军。20世纪的戴高乐总统则将法国的第一艘核动力弹道导弹潜艇命名为"可畏号"。
纳尔逊本人在甲板上指挥战斗时,被"可畏号"上的一名狙击手的子弹击中,以身殉职。英国人在伦敦市中心将他的雕像树立在高耸的纪念碑上,让他成为"全英国站立最高点的人",成为英国的精神象征。
去年纳尔逊当选为最伟大的10名英国人之一
“英格兰人”?
纳尔逊在大战开始前通过旗手向舰队发出命令:“每一位英格兰人都必须尽责”,这句话后来成为英国人的一句名言。
但在纳尔逊舰队里的很多官兵并不是英格兰人,如果按国籍划分,他们是外国人。
当年的记录显示,光是英国旗舰"胜利号"上,就有64名苏格兰人,63名爱尔兰人,18名威尔士人,9名西印度群岛人,21名美国人,7名荷兰人,6名瑞典人,4名意大利人,4名马耳他人,3名挪威人,3名德国人,瑞士、葡萄牙、丹麦、印度人各2名,有来自俄国、巴西、加拿大、非洲、设得兰群岛人,还有来自法国的3名水手!
这些水手因为他们的职业原因,加入了一场国际战争。同英格兰人一样,他们尽力尽责。从某种角度说,没有这种"国际努力",纳尔逊的胜利也不会这么辉煌。
在后来大英帝国的无数战争中,世界各国的老百姓同样做出巨大贡献。一次大战中,光中国一地,就有至少14万华工飘洋过海,参加英法盟军作战,其中大多都是山东青年。
按英国人的话来说,从来就没有多少纯正的“英格兰人”,它现在就是一个“苏格兰人”、“爱尔兰人”、“威尔士人”、“生活在英国的法国人、德国人、欧洲人和所有外国人”的一个代名词。
在21世纪的今天,世界各国的竞争已经不是通过帝国炮舰政策,也不简单以国画界,而是经济、科技、贸易、文化和人才的竞争。在全球化的今天,崇尚多文化的英国如此隆重庆祝特拉法加海战,除了回顾昔日的光辉之外,是希望弘扬这块土地上的精神,形成凝聚力。
但在英国,没有人愿意把它叫做“英国民族精神”,它一直缺乏准确的名称。可这又有什么关系呢?当你在伦敦市中心的特拉法加广场游览,或者在港市朴茨茅斯参观保存完好的“胜利号”时,你不觉得英国人一样对英雄、对“霸业”的怀念和崇拜吗?
(2005年10月25日)
- Re: Trafalgar 200posted on 11/04/2005
这一篇很好,讲了些真话。
当然,英国人现在整天坐吃利息也不好,除了身体肥胖以外,一点诗
意也没有,还不如拿破仑战败得好。
谁不喜欢失败的英雄呢,就连雪莱拜伦都这样。
相比拿破仑,纳尔逊(尼尔森?)还是要查字典才知道的(还得是百
科全书式的字典)。
- posted on 11/04/2005
xw wrote:
这一篇很好,讲了些真话。
当然,英国人现在整天坐吃利息也不好,除了身体肥胖以外,一点诗
意也没有,还不如拿破仑战败得好。
谁不喜欢失败的英雄呢,就连雪莱拜伦都这样。
相比拿破仑,纳尔逊(尼尔森?)还是要查字典才知道的(还得是百
科全书式的字典)。
Heros lives for people. Poet lives for people. Is it the fortune of the people or not? That's a question.
喜欢失败的英雄 is not too much a luxery for normal people to affrod. :)
- Re: Trafalgar 200posted on 11/04/2005
成功了的英雄腐化以后,身体上长满了蛆。当然不是尼尔森。
尼尔森是烈士而归。
就说那个惠灵顿,贝多芬也写了一首“英雄”的,还加上了真的大炮轰鸣
。过后,这首交响曲未编进他的体系,形同拉圾。
英国人用鸦片害我国民,我绝不与他们一鼻子出气!
- Re: Trafalgar 200posted on 11/04/2005
xw wrote:
英国人用鸦片害我国民,我绝不与他们一鼻子出气!
So 我国民 should learn how to use 鸦片 to 害 英国人. If you don't recognise the way they did it, next time it will be still them to do it.:) - Re: Trafalgar 200posted on 11/04/2005
肉食者谋之,又何间焉?
我不抽鸦片就行啦。再说,还是得来点精神胜利的,尤其是针对市面
上那些假“道义”。
我听英雄交响曲,不听惠灵顿! - posted on 11/04/2005
XW is feeling patriotic today… You guys just crack me up! It is Friday, salvation is finally coming! God do I feel chatty…
I thought about U.K. a lot lately… I imagine being a young student in London, pale-faced, wandering in the museums like a ghost… In the weekend I will take trains to the country side. I would stare out of the window, absent-mindedly, a faint ray of sun-shine will rest on my face occasionally, giving me a little bit of warm color…
OK enough day-dreaming. Linghu, tell me, why the food in London’s China Town is so lousy?
- posted on 11/04/2005
Susan wrote:
Linghu, tell me, why the food in London’s China Town is so lousy?
The day dreaming is poetic. however I wish I could answer this question if I knew what "lousy". Sorry i wrote too many technical arguments in this week that i don't know how to speak human english any more.
China town is the most ugly taste that i am ashamed of in overseas. Early Cantonese immigration did not help too much even on the food. I am not sure we can do things better than them, to be honest. I think I am born with my identity, and it's hard to be fuzzy about it. So is the food.
- posted on 11/04/2005
Why Linghu, you can use the word in your technical argument, like, "you are such a lousy boss". Your colleagues would love it.
lous·y (louz)
adj. lous·i·er, lous·i·est
1. Infested with lice.
2. Extremely contemptible; nasty: a lousy trick.
3. Very painful or unpleasant: a lousy headache.
4. Inferior or worthless: a lousy play.
5. Slang Abundantly supplied: lousy with money.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lousi·ly adv.
lousi·ness n. - posted on 11/05/2005
Susan wrote:
Why Linghu, you can use the word in your technical argument, like, "you are such a lousy boss". Your colleagues would love it.
Technical stuff has a quality. It's called neutral. Your quota as such does look like a bit too personal. :)
By the way, dear Susan, in reality, it's more likely you boss declare you as "lousy", and you colleagues never sluggish in noding their heads like chicks. There is no day dreaming if it's about money and business :)
- posted on 11/05/2005
When historians interpret the English hisotry, you are told with only one simple concept "conflict of religions"; just as Freudians do to human behaviors with "conflict of sex". :)
Here is another source of English tradition day "bonfire"http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/state/monarchs_leaders/gunpowder_hutton_04.shtml
------What If the Gunpowder Plot Had Succeeded?-------
By Professor Ronald Hutton
Modern Britain might have been a very different place if the Gunpowder Plot had gone according to plan. But for a month's delay in the opening of parliament, an unprecedented atrocity might well have occurred.
Engraving of the Gunpowder Plot conspirators, 1605 (Thomas Bates, Robert Winter, Christopher Wright, John Wright, Thomas Percy, Guy Fawkes, Robert Catesby, Thomas Winter), artist unknown ©
Page 1 of 5
1. Introduction
2. Bloody aftermath
3. No English Civil War
4. Absolute monarchy
5. Find out more
Print entire article Introduction
As history actually turned out, there are two very good reasons why the Gunpowder Plot had to fail. The first was that the plotters were caught in the double-bind of most early modern conspirators: in order to make a rebellion work, it had to involve a lot of people, but the more people who knew about the plot, the more it was likely to leak.
In the case of this one, the means of effecting it, by murdering most of the English political élite, was so sensational and so morally disturbing to most people, that the chances of somebody blowing the whistle on it were unusually high.
That is exactly what happened; one of the people brought into the plot in its later stages (probably the unstable Francis Tresham) told an opportunist peer, Lord Monteagle, who tipped off the government. The other reason why the plot was a guaranteed failure was simply that the powder would not have blown.
When it was moved to the Tower of London magazine after Guy Fawkes was caught, it was discovered to be `decayed'; that is, it had done what gunpowder always did when left to sit for too long, and separated into its component chemical parts, rendering it harmless. If Guy had plunged in the torch with Parliament all ready above him, all that would have happened would have been a damp splutter.
'...the plot was a guaranteed failure was simply that the powder would not have blown.'
Both these fatal weaknesses were contingent, however, on one accident of history; the postponement of Parliament. It had originally been scheduled to meet on 3 October 1605, and only the lingering traces of bubonic plague in London made it seem sensible to put off the occasion for a month.
Let us suppose that this one variable had been removed, and there had been no plague in the capital that summer. Parliament would have met a month before, very probably when the gunpowder (stored in the cellar since July) was still lethally effective, and arguably before one of the less discreet plotters had lost nerve enough to talk to Monteagle.
We are thus in a real position to suppose that in October 1605, King James, Queen Anne, and both Houses of Parliament would indeed have gone sky-high together, leaving the Catholic conspirators ready to seize the kingdom. What would have happened then?
- posted on 11/05/2005
What If the Gunpowder Plot Had Succeeded?
By Professor Ronald Hutton
Page 2 of 5
1. Introduction
2. Bloody aftermath
3. No English Civil War
4. Absolute monarchy
5. Find out more
Print entire article Bloody aftermath
Detail from a print showing the execution of the gunpowder conspirators © Almost certainly, the result would have been a catastrophe for the English Roman Catholic community. The plan of the plotters was that while Guy was blowing up Parliament, most of the others would be making for the Midlands, to seize the dead king's elder daughter Elizabeth, from her residence in Warwickshire, and start an armed rebellion there which would spread out to take over the country.
The king's elder son, Henry, would have died with his parents, and the younger one, Charles, was to be taken prisoner at London before the conspirators pulled out, and then brought up to the Midlands to join his sister.
What is really significant about the results is not that the explosion did not go off, nor that the plotters could not find Charles to capture him before riding north, but that when they reached the central counties they behaved as though the whole scheme had worked, announcing to their friends there that the the king was dead.
Despite this lie, very few recruits joined them and the project of taking Elizabeth had to be called off. The small armed band that they did pull together was hunted down by Protestant vigilantes led by local officials, and were then killed or captured.
'...the rest of the English Catholics would have been caught by surprise, and felt appalled by the scale of the crime.'
It is unlikely that things would have been very different had the explosion occurred, even had the conspirators captured the royal children. For obvious security reasons most of the small English Catholic community had not been informed of the plot, and one important member who had heard about it by accident, Henry Garnet the leader of the English Jesuits, had been horrified and ordered the plotters to desist.
As news spread of the mass-murder at Westminster and the rebellion in the Midlands, the rest of the English Catholics would have been caught by surprise, and felt appalled by the scale of the crime.
They would have been in no physical or emotional position to support the rebels, and they would have been surrounded by Protestants who were hearing of the atrocity in the capital and the uprising, aware that Catholics were responsible for both, and left under the command of their surviving local leaders.
Almost certainly these would have taken up arms in a panic, turned upon the Catholics in their respective areas, and imprisoned or slaughtered them, in an English equivalent to the wave of hate and fear that had driven the French Catholics to massacre the Protestants there on St Bartholomew's Day in 1572.
Protestant militia and vigilantes would have converged on the rebels in the Midlands and overwhelmed them. It is unlikely that the conspirators would have murdered the royal children when surrounded. Their actual conduct when brought to bay was that of a high-minded resignation to martyrdom.
The Catholic powers of Europe would have protested at the slaughter inflicted upon their co-religionists, but the murder of the king, queen and peerage would have done much to excuse it in the eyes of foreign states.
- posted on 11/05/2005
What If the Gunpowder Plot Had Succeeded?
By Professor Ronald Hutton
Page 3 of 5
1. Introduction
2. Bloody aftermath
3. No English Civil War
4. Absolute monarchy
5. Find out more
Print entire article No English Civil War
The implications of this outcome for future British history would have been tremendous. Charles I would have become king at the age of four instead of twenty-four. He would never have had the difficult relationship with his parents that left him determined to abandon most of his father's policies, and never have made a friendship with his father's unpopular favourite, Buckingham, so tarnishing the opening of his own reign.
'As a godly Protestant prince, with all the serious and devout nature of the real Charles, he would have been assured of considerable support in Britain.'
Instead he would have revered the memory of his murdered parents, and almost certainly have acquired an abiding hatred of Catholicism, and tended instead to the evangelical wing of Anglicanism. This would have made him much more popular in both England and Scotland than the Anglo-Catholic policies that he adopted instead.
His sister would almost certainly have married a Protestant German prince (as she actually did), and when he lost his lands to Catholic powers (as he also really did), our different, zealously Protestant and anti-Catholic, Charles would have entered the war wholeheartedly on their side. As a godly Protestant prince, with all the serious and devout nature of the real Charles, he would have been assured of considerable support in Britain.
It is true that the financial system was under serious strain already, and would probably have collapsed under the war effort, but the accord between our new Charles and his subjects would have provided a much better basis for an overhaul of it to strengthen the monarchy.
It is true also that the Catholic majority in Ireland, faced with such a hostile king, would have probably been moved to rebellion as they actually were against the Long Parliament in 1641, but the most likely end to that would be that the crushing of the Irish Catholics by Cromwell would have occurred much sooner, and by a secure and popular king.
- posted on 11/05/2005
What If the Gunpowder Plot Had Succeeded?
By Professor Ronald Hutton
Page 4 of 5
1. Introduction
2. Bloody aftermath
3. No English Civil War
4. Absolute monarchy
5. Find out more
Print entire article Absolute monarchy
The Irish problem would have been solved by a programme of mass confiscation and mass evangelization, leaving three Protestant kingdoms under one monarch. In short, had Guy Fawkes succeeded, the British state would have turned into a Protestant absolute monarchy as Sweden, Denmark, Saxony and Prussia all did in the course of the 17th century; but much stronger than any of those. As such, it would in turn have paid the price of this achievement, as its powerful monarchy collapsed in revolution in modern times.
There is, however, another scenario. Let us suppose that the English Protestant majority were sufficiently shocked and demoralized by the destruction of their ruling élite, and sufficiently reassured by promises of religious toleration offered by the new Catholic-controlled government, to give in to the conspirators.
The royal children would have been handed over to the Jesuits for education, led by the gentle and intelligent Father Garnet. Whatever Elizabeth thought, it is possible that Charles's nature, both pious and insecure, would have responded to them, especially as Garnet would have emphasised his personal distaste for the slaughter caused by the explosion.
'So much may hang upon the presence of a few plague bacilli in the right place.'
Charles would then have converted to Catholicism, which would well have suited his yearning for order, harmony, and beauty, and his taste in art and architecture. Many of his subjects would slowly have followed his lead, until Protestantism in England became a minority from whom toleration could be withdrawn in future generations as it was in France.
Ireland would enthusiastically have supported the new regime, making Anglo-Irish relations a model of co-operation, while Scotland would have declared independence under cousins of the Stuarts and become a refuge for English Protestants; ultimately it would probably have been conquered.
Parliament would have been compromised enough by the Catholic need to control a Protestant majority to disappear or be rendered innocuous. The road to absolute monarchy would have been taken; but this time on the model of France, Spain or Austria.
Instead we got the Anglo-Catholic Charles I, a rebellious Scotland, civil wars, revolutions, constitional monarchy; and a peaceful, and stable modern Britain. So much can hang upon the presence of a few plague bacilli in the right place.
- Re: Bonfire and English Historyposted on 11/05/2005
About the author
Ronald Hutton took three degrees at Cambridge and Oxford, and was elected to an Oxford fellowship before moving to Bristol University, where he is now Professor of History. His books include: The Triumph of the Moon: A History of Modern Pagan Witchcraft (Oxford University Press, 1999) The Royalist War Effort (1981), Charles II (1989) and The Rise and Fall of Merry England (1994).
Previous
Published: 01-04-2001
- Re: Bonfire and English Historyposted on 11/05/2005
Final questions: Why does this professor thinks Protestants could be more tolorant than Catholics? Is it true.
So English society could be more tolerant, so there have been less massacre and revolution in England than in France?
- posted on 11/05/2005
Well, it seems Susan is still living in Charles Dickens’ era. One thing Susan forgot to mention is an umbrella – quite a symbol of Britishness. Hahah.....
(Responsibly speaking, the picture is totally out of tune of its true colour.)
Susan wrote:
I thought about U.K. a lot lately… I imagine being a young student in London, pale-faced, wandering in the museums like a ghost… In the weekend I will take trains to the country side. I would stare out of the window, absent-mindedly, a faint ray of sun-shine will rest on my face occasionally, giving me a little bit of warm color… - posted on 11/06/2005
当年英国人试着用了许多别的东西和中国贸易。可除了鸦片,中国人什么都看不上,不想要。商船穿过重洋,历尽艰险,总不能只装白银、没有货物吧。所以英国人是坏,但有一点情可原。
英国人、法国人打了多少年战争了,肯定多于几个一百年,打得连王室的血统都分不清了,成败此一时彼一时吗。
我倒是有一念,男人们再想打仗,就让他们在大海上找个没人的地方打(以后应该定为国际法)。就是打赢了的英雄,回来后也三天不给饭吃。
LingHuChong wrote:
xw wrote:So 我国民 should learn how to use 鸦片 to 害 英国人. If you don't recognise the way they did it, next time it will be still them to do it.:)
英国人用鸦片害我国民,我绝不与他们一鼻子出气!
- posted on 11/06/2005
哈哈哈,打赢了的英雄,回来后三天近不得女人。
说正经的,鸦片战争在某种意义上其实是一件好事。
鸦片战争前的清朝,不知地球为圆形,世上有几大洲、几大洋,死抱着祖宗成法“骑射为先”,长期轻视枪炮。入关200年后,半数兵士还使用着弓矢、矛戟。武器装备落后西方三至四个世纪。更有趣的是,因洋人不肯下跪,认为他们的膝盖不会打弯,故提出“以长梃击其足”,认为用木棍、“扫堂腿”就能让英夷倒地不起。广州防御战中,指挥杨芳见英舰炮火猛烈准确,认为是妖术,便依照民间污秽物可以避邪的传说,在全城收集猪羊血、妇人便桶摆在城墙上。如此愚昧,焉能不败?
中国的问题就在于长期推崇熟读经书、精通考据、善作八股、重文轻理、图名贬商。而商业恰恰最能激发人/民族的活力和交流,促进社会发展。
鸦片战争使得许多中国人从自我陶醉中清醒过来,从而变得务实。要不然,中国的思想与国力也许还会停留在清朝时代。
现在,鸦片是没了,可是香烟还在。外国烟草公司还在一边毒害着中国人,一边搜刮着中国人的口袋。可恨可怜!
- Re: Trafalgar 200posted on 11/07/2005
为力 wrote:
当年英国人试着用了许多别的东西和中国贸易。可除了鸦片,中国人什么都看不上,不想要。商船穿过重洋,历尽艰险,总不能只装白银、没有货物吧。所以英国人是坏,但有一点情可原。
我说,这英国人哪里远过重洋呢。让印度人(印巴孟分裂前的)种鸦
片,让中国人吃鸦片。然后把大把大把的金银用船往回运就行啦。
所以我说,就连法拉弟那一点电解实验的经费,也有中国烟民身体上
的血腥气呢。
马克思是不是英国人?燕妮肯定是!
- posted on 11/08/2005
和你较回劲吧。
英国人奴役印度人的历史,我现在还是摇头,要知道我是很欣赏印度古文化的。
还有,那时英国人在汪洋大海上可是大赚便宜呢。从美洲运回蔗糖,去的时候,货船也绝对不能空着,要装非洲黑奴,而且还要满满的。
打下个日不落的帝国,谈何容易?我认为是英国的长子继承制,把那些无土地、无财产的小儿子,中儿子们,逼向海上扩张这条险路的。
我只知道马克思是犹太人。犹太人在人类历史上,从不寂寞,他们有许多的代言人呢。
xw wrote:
为力 wrote:我说,这英国人哪里远过重洋呢。让印度人(印巴孟分裂前的)种鸦
当年英国人试着用了许多别的东西和中国贸易。可除了鸦片,中国人什么都看不上,不想要。商船穿过重洋,历尽艰险,总不能只装白银、没有货物吧。所以英国人是坏,但有一点情可原。
片,让中国人吃鸦片。然后把大把大把的金银用船往回运就行啦。
所以我说,就连法拉弟那一点电解实验的经费,也有中国烟民身体上
的血腥气呢。
马克思是不是英国人?
- posted on 11/08/2005
I just read the article more carefully. A historian's day dreaming is a lot of fun!
I think the argument the prof. made is not that "Protestants could be more tolerant than Catholics". His argument is that if the gunpowder conspiracy had succeed, England's political system would have been absolute monarchy under either a whole-hearted protestant king or a whole-hearted catholic king. Either way, it would have been a absolute monarchy, thus would have to be thrown by a bloody revolution later on.
But what really happened in history is that Protestants and Catholics have been struggled for such a long time but neither could gain full control of the country. Consequentially the Parliament and the Kings had learned to compromise, compromise, compromise, and the monarchy becomes a constitutional monarchy. Because of that, when it was time for the monarchy to give way to a more democratic form, no massacre or major revolution was necessary.
Hope I got this right.
LingHuChong wrote:
Final questions: Why does this professor thinks Protestants could be more tolorant than Catholics? Is it true.
So English society could be more tolerant, so there have been less massacre and revolution in England than in France?
- posted on 11/08/2005
That's good, did he say that? I did not really read between the lines. :)
Susan wrote:
Just read the article more carefully. A historian's day dreaming is a lot of fun!
I think the argument the prof. made is not that "Protestants could be more tolerant than Catholics". His argument is that if the gunpowder conspiracy had succeed, England's political system would have been absolute monarchy under either a whole-hearted protestant king or a whole-hearted catholic king. Either way, it would have been a absolute monarchy, thus would have to be thrown by a bloody revolution later on.
But what really happened in history is that Protestants and Catholics have been struggled for such a long time but neither could gain full control of the country. Subsequentially the Parliament and the Kings had learned to compromise, compromise, compromise, and the monarchy becomes a constitutional monarchy. because of that, when it was time for the monarchy to give way to a more democratic form, no massacre and major revolution was necessary.
Hope I got this right.
LingHuChong wrote:
Final questions: Why does this professor thinks Protestants could be more tolorant than Catholics? Is it true.
So English society could be more tolerant, so there have been less massacre and revolution in England than in France?
- posted on 11/08/2005
That's well said. xw is always defeatable in simple political arguments.:)
Indian can buy English culture and tolerate the colonism in the past. It looks natural to them --- but might be too much a puzzle or say shock for us. :) Tolerance is so precious that you can see western's fully-hearted appreciation to Nelson Mandela -- he was in charge of the tolerant culture in new South Africa for the bloody and disgusting past.
Is the tolerance a good thing? Nobody even dare to answer this question, neither do I. Maybe the answer doesn't matter at all. While British adventures always looked beyond their island in the past 300 years, that's sth not easy to learn even, I guess.
为力 wrote:
和你较回劲吧。
英国人奴役印度人的历史,我现在还是摇头,要知道我是很欣赏印度古文化的。
还有,那时英国人在汪洋大海上可是大赚便宜呢。从美洲运回蔗糖,去的时候,货船也绝对不能空着,要装非洲黑奴,而且还要满满的。
打下个日不落的帝国,谈何容易?我认为是英国的长子继承制,把那些无土地、无财产的小儿子,中儿子们,逼向海上扩张这条险路的。
我只知道马克思是犹太人。犹太人在人类历史上,从不寂寞,他们有许多的代言人呢。
- Re: Trafalgar 200posted on 11/08/2005
British history is very interesting. When I visited the Westminster Abbey, I saw Queen Elizabath and Bloody Mary buried next to each other. The Latin inscription on their tomb translates to "Partners both in Throne and grave, here rest we two sisters, Elizabeth and Mary, in the hope of one resurrection". This striked me as truly significant because I couldn't imagine it is something Chinese emperors would do. - Re: Trafalgar 200posted on 11/09/2005
做加拿大政府公务员这么多年了,还是没有忘记最初的雇用书是我和HER MARJESTY共签的。
LingHuChong,Let us pray, God Save the Queen.
LingHuChong wrote:
That's well said. - posted on 01/04/2006
Through Humpty Dumpty the unfortunate cannon I come to realize how significant a role King Charles I played in British history. I have to take back some of the comments I had made: It is not that "the Parliament and the Kings had learned to compromise, compromise, compromise"; it is through a bloody civil war Charles I waged (in which 10% of the population died) that the Parliament finally got the upper-hand, established a new government structure, brought Ireland into UK and avoided the involvement of French Revolution. (The last part I have yet to comprehend)
Some introductions from Wikipedia:
The wars led to the trial and execution of Charles I, the exile of his son Charles II, and the replacement of the English monarchy with the Commonwealth of England (1649–1653) and then with a Protectorate (1653–1659) under the personal rule of Oliver Cromwell. The monopoly of the Church of England on Christian worship in England came to an end, and the victors consolidated the already-established Protestant aristocracy in Ireland. Constitutionally, the wars established a precedent that British monarchs could not govern without the consent of Parliament.
As they resulted in the restoration of the monarchy with the consent of Parliament, the civil wars effectively set England and Scotland on course to become a parliamentary democracy. This system would ensure that the United Kingdom, created under the acts of union, would avoid participation in the European republican movements that followed the Jacobin revolution in 18th century France and the later success of Napoleon.
Susan wrote:
But what really happened in history is that Protestants and Catholics have been struggled for such a long time but neither could gain full control of the country. Consequentially the Parliament and the Kings had learned to compromise, compromise, compromise, and the monarchy becomes a constitutional monarchy. Because of that, when it was time for the monarchy to give way to a more democratic form, no massacre or major revolution was necessary.
- Re: Trafalgar 200posted on 01/04/2006
我也是在孩子的幼儿园知道Humpty Dumpty是一门大炮,有一回孩子
在车里给我指一堆地下管道,说'Humpty Dumpty'。
过去的事情过去了就好,留下儿歌童谣也好。现在Humpty Dumpty的
画书上都画着一个陶人,打破了再也还不了原了。
苏珊喜欢往里深究,我却爱“雨过河源隔座看”。。。
- Re: Bonfire and English Historyposted on 01/04/2006
Susan always shamed me the kind of fake British.
Whenever there was a conflict in its history, Britain always settled with the best solution, practially good for the long-term benefit of the nation. It has puzzled me ever since. Maybe there is a destiny. - posted on 01/04/2006
Susan always shamed me the kind of fake British.
Forget about it. I don't know much about U.S. history at all. Luckily it is not too long so I was able to get away with it so far.
Whenever there was a conflict in its history, Britain always settled with the best solution, practially good for the long-term benefit of the nation. It has puzzled me ever since. Maybe there is a destiny.
Don't be so sure about that! Now you stuck with the royalty forever and have to pay taxes to support them!
Seriously, tell me which is better: get rid of the royalty to save tax or keep them to generate revenue for tourism and news media?
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
- LingHuChong
- #1 chloe
- #2 LingHuChong
- #3 xw
- #4 LingHuChong
- #5 xw
- #6 LingHuChong
- #7 xw
- #8 Susan
- #9 LingHuChong
- #10 Susan
- #11 LingHuChong
- #12 LingHuChong
- #13 LingHuChong
- #14 LingHuChong
- #15 LingHuChong
- #16 LingHuChong
- #17 LingHuChong
- #18 FunLover
- #19 为力
- #20 FunLover
- #21 xw
- #22 为力
- #23 Susan
- #24 LingHuChong
- #25 LingHuChong
- #26 Susan
- #27 为力
- #28 Susan
- #29 xw
- #30 LingHuChong
- #31 Susan
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation