Military Review

English Revolution: Blood and Madness

89
English Revolution: Blood and Madness

Cromwell reads a letter found in Charles I's wagon train after the Battle of Nesby. Painting by Charles Landseer


History Russia XVI-XVII centuries. considered bloody in Europe. Indeed, this time was marked by Ivan the Terrible's oprichnina, Troubles, Razin's war, various riots. However, if we compare with the Western powers, then in Russia everything was not so bad. Where was she, for example, to England!

Country of traders and usurers


Unlike France or Spain, England was no longer an aristocratic state, but a commercial one. The tribal nobility was carved out in centuries of strife. In particular, during the War of the Scarlet and White Rose in the XNUMXth century. The aristocracy was replaced by gentry - "new nobles" who emerged from the wealthy merchants and usurers. At first, it even seemed beneficial and progressive for the country. The new nobles were enterprising, active, starting new enterprises, manufactures, building ships, looking for new markets and sources of raw materials. Trade developed rapidly. Kings relied on the gentry, who gave great powers to parliament. It consisted of two chambers, peers (lords) and communities, approved laws and a budget. Also, the royal power declared itself the patron saint of all Protestants. This also seemed politically beneficial. England became an exporter of uprisings and revolutions.

But the rest of the people did not benefit from this. The new nobles held the so-called. fencing. The peasants were driven from the land from which they fed, as it was economically more profitable to use the land for other purposes (for example, for pastures). Bloody legislation was immediately introduced against thousands of vagrants and beggars. They were turned into slaves, working for a bowl of stew, or branded and hung. The survivors were forced to go to the enterprises of the rich, to their ships with beggarly pay and hard labor conditions, quickly driving a person to the grave. Slums have sprung up in the cities. Ordinary people could not find protection in court. The justices of the peace were the same rich and powerful, they also sat in parliament. Members of the House of Commons were usually several times richer than the Lords.

The merchants' appetites grew steadily. They knew how to save (most often on others) and be cost effective. Therefore, the parliamentarians in every possible way opposed the collection of taxes, since it concerned their pocket. Funding for the royal court was cut, as were government spending. Over time, the merchant stratum wanted to regulate the kings.


Carl First, portrait of Daniel Maitens

Stronghold of heresies


By patronizing the Protestants who sparked a series of violent wars across Western Europe, England itself became infected with heresies. Various sects multiplied. English merchants and bankers, like their Dutch counterparts, loved Calvinism. In him there was an orientation toward the "chosenness of God" of the rich. Professional success, prosperity, and wealth were the hallmarks of the "chosen few." The Anglican Church was autonomous, but retained many of the hallmarks of Catholicism. Calvinists (in England they called themselves Puritans - "clean") demanded to reduce the cost of the church. Destroy icons, rich altars, abolish the sign of the cross, kneeling. Bishops had to be replaced by synods of presbyters (priests) who would be elected by the flock. It is clear that the “chosen ones” were supposed to get to the synods.

Calvinism became the ideology of political opposition. Theories of the "social contract" were developed. It was believed that the first kings of Israel were chosen by the people according to God's will. Therefore, the current monarchs must rule within the framework of an appropriate agreement with the people, protecting their freedom. Otherwise, the king turns into a tyrant and opposes God. Therefore, it is not only possible, but also necessary to overthrow it. And the synods of presbyters should transfer the will of God to the monarch. It is clear that such ideas fell in love with the rich stratum.

The politics of Charles I


The English king Charles I ruled from 1625. He was a comparatively gentle and indecisive person who could not curb opposition. Conflicts with parliament (mainly over taxes) were ongoing. The deputies did not give the king money, they came up with laws that limited the power of the monarch. Charles and his advisers, the governor in Ireland, the Earl of Stafford and the Archbishop of Canterbury Lod, tried to stabilize the situation and find a compromise. The concessions only encouraged the opposition, they wanted even more. Parliaments were dispersed, but the new ones became even more radical.

The tensions were exacerbated by the problems of Scotland and Ireland. In 1603, King James VI of Scotland inherited the English throne and became King James I of England. Scotland was united with England, but was considered an independent state. The king was one, but governments, parliaments and laws remained different. The Scottish nobility was obstinate, quarrelsome, with almost no regard for the royal power. Local barons also liked Calvinism, which justified the freedom of the feudal lords. In Scotland, it was proclaimed the state religion. The barons became presbyters, created a council, and seized all power. And the king tried to pursue a policy of rapprochement between Scottish Presbyterianism and Anglicanism. He attracted bishops to higher positions, pushing back the local aristocrats.

Also, the Scots were annoyed by the issue of property and taxes. In 1625 Charles I issued the Revocation Act, which annulled all land grants by the kings of Scotland, beginning in 1540. First of all, this concerned the former church lands, secularized during the Reformation. The nobles could keep these lands in their ownership, but on condition of a cash payment, which went to support the church. This decree affected the financial interests of a large part of the Scottish nobility and caused great discontent with the king. In addition, the Scottish Parliament, under pressure from the king, authorized the taxation for four years in advance. Soon, this led to the fact that the taxation of land and income in the country became permanent, and this practice did not correspond to the traditional order for Scotland.

The British conquered Ireland several times. She was in the position of a colony. Irish Catholics were considered "savages", "white blacks". They were kept in the position of slaves, the land was taken away. The entire local administration consisted of Protestants. The Irish were turned into serfs, sold into slavery, taking them overseas. Even for the murder of an Irishman, an Englishman was punished with only a small fine. Of course, the Irish did not surrender, they constantly revolted. They were drowned in blood. To keep Ireland in check, British troops were stationed there. In Ireland, the king could impose taxes without the permission of parliament. Desperate for money, Karl did this on multiple occasions. But the patience of the Irish was not endless, in 1640 they rebelled again.

At the same time, Scotland was seething. The royal policy of introducing Anglican rites and liturgy into Scottish Presbyterian worship, as well as strengthening the power of the bishops, met with resistance. In 1638, a manifesto in defense of Presbyterianism, the National Covenant, was adopted. The king's opponents set up supplies weapons and equipment from Europe. Experienced commanders and mercenaries with experience of the Thirty Years' War arrived from there. Among them, Alexander Leslie stood out. Scottish rebels forged ties with the opposition to the king in London. As a result, the elders of Edinburgh and the opposition in London conspired and struck at the king.

The drama was played like clockwork. The Scots revolted in 1639 and captured the royal castles. The idea of ​​going to London was born. And in the English capital, parliamentarians whipped up panic, frightened the people with the "Scottish threat." But at the same time, the parliament refused to give money to the king for the war. Karl began to be blackmailed: money in exchange for concessions. With the Scots, the English opposition kept in touch, suggested the weaknesses of the royal supporters when to increase the onslaught, when to stop. The people were stirred up in London. In 1640, Leslie's Scottish army inflicted a series of defeats on the royal forces, invaded England and captured Newcastle. In the royal army, demoralized by poor funding, unpopularity of the king in society, unrest began.

Karl had to capitulate. Scottish troops received an indemnity. The king called a new parliament called Dolgiy (in force in 1640-1653 and 1659-1660) to introduce new taxes to be paid to the Scots. He signed a law according to which parliament could not be dissolved by anyone, only by his own decision. The king was deprived of the right to any extraordinary tax collection. The opposition, which hated the king's advisers, demanded that they be handed over for reprisals. Parliament tried them on a falsified charge of treason (no evidence was available). In May 1641, Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford, was executed. Archbishop William Laud was held in prison for a long time, hoping for a "natural" death, and was eventually beheaded in January 1645.

The king was never given money. Parliament bought peace with Scotland. In 1641 the London Peace was concluded. All laws of the Scottish Parliament from the beginning of the uprising were approved by the king. The rebels received amnesty, the Scottish army received indemnity. Royal troops were withdrawn from a number of fortresses.


Thomas Wentworth, 1st Earl of Strafford (1593-1641)

To be continued ...
Author:
Photos used:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/
89 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. parusnik
    parusnik 8 October 2020 06: 06 New
    +5
    Hmm, I especially liked it:
    England became an exporter of uprisings and revolutions.
    ... And where did you export it to? smile
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 8 October 2020 08: 16 New
      +1
      It was after the English Revolution that revolutionary unrest swept across Europe.
      1. Hantengri
        Hantengri 8 October 2020 10: 38 New
        10
        Quote: bober1982
        It was after the English Revolution that revolutionary unrest swept across Europe.

        I wonder which ones?
        Major European "riots" XVII. at.:
        Netherlands bourgeois revolution - 1555-1648 (93 (!) Years, however, Maidan was!)
        Thirty Years' War - 1618-1648
        They began a little earlier than the beginning of the English bourgeois revolution in 1640-1660, and ended, again, a little earlier than its end.
        So, what: I would very much like to know what other "revolutionary riots", in your opinion, dear Beaver, swept Europe "Precisely after the English revolution"? "Announce the entire list, please!" (C).
        By the way, why not say that "Europe (including England) was overwhelmed by revolutionary unrest." after the Maidan in the Netherlands?
        1. bober1982
          bober1982 8 October 2020 10: 59 New
          -4
          Quote: HanTengri
          after the Maidan in the Netherlands?

          They had a struggle for independence, it was Marx who thought of the bourgeois revolution.
          Namely, after the English revolution a republican system was first established (temporarily), which was new and unusual for Europe, Europe became different.
          The French Revolution, after which Europe came to an end, then there was a real chaos.
      2. lucul
        lucul 8 October 2020 10: 50 New
        -5
        It was after the English Revolution that revolutionary unrest swept across Europe.

        Well, what did Lenin say there? A revolutionary situation? Bullshit.
        In fact - in 1640 usurers came to power in England. In 1789, the usurers staged a coup in France, destroyed their old rival, and massacred almost all French nobles. Further export of revolutions throughout Europe, with the genocide of the nobles. In 1917, a coup in Russia, ordered by the usurers, with the same genocide of the aristocracy.
        So much for the history of Europe without rose-colored glasses.
        1. Tavrik
          Tavrik 8 October 2020 13: 06 New
          +6
          Normally, you have written all industrialists and landowners into usurers ... The development of the economy in all its areas, from shipbuilding to metalworking, has led to an increase in the incomes of not only bankers. And here, in different countries and at different times, there were common inconsistencies: the "lower classes" (industrialists and financial groups) do not want to live in the old way, and the "upper classes" (kings and their governments) cannot rule in the old way. It became necessary for the "top" to share power, because financial flows were concentrated in the hands of the "lower classes" since the Middle Ages. And the "top", incl. what do the nobles give to the country? Doing business is bad manners. They can only fight, but this does not give money, only expenses. Which must be covered by taking money from ... "lower classes". This is how the power began to flow from the hands of the nobility to the "financial-industrial groups."
        2. vlad106
          vlad106 14 November 2020 22: 52 New
          0
          Quote: lucul
          It was after the English Revolution that revolutionary unrest swept across Europe.


          In fact - in 1640 usurers came to power in England. In 1789, the usurers staged a coup in France, destroyed their old rival, and massacred almost all French nobles. Further export of revolutions throughout Europe, with the genocide of the nobles. In 1917, a coup in Russia, ordered by the usurers, with the same genocide


          this slave system is now trying to impose on us vile Anglo-Saxon traders, in the past pirates and bandits
      3. kalibr
        kalibr 8 October 2020 12: 38 New
        +6
        More than 100 years of difference! England 1640-60 - France 1793. What other disturbances do you know?
        1. bober1982
          bober1982 8 October 2020 12: 58 New
          -5
          Quote: kalibr
          What other disorders do you know?

          We know what kind of massacre.
          Without the English revolution there would be no French, without the French there would not have been all these European revolutions of the first half of the XNUMXth century, and then, Russian revolutions. And all this, in the name of Freedom, Equality and Brotherhood - to release guts, to your fellow citizens.
          1. kalibr
            kalibr 8 October 2020 13: 50 New
            +4
            There was no massacre for years. It began more than 100 years later and our character was completely different. Lord, why no one knows for sure, but just write something ...
            1. bober1982
              bober1982 8 October 2020 14: 00 New
              -2
              Quote: kalibr
              why no one knows for sure

              Who knows for sure?
              1. kalibr
                kalibr 8 October 2020 16: 06 New
                +5
                At least within the framework of the school curriculum you can know ...
                1. Daniil Konovalenko
                  Daniil Konovalenko 8 October 2020 16: 38 New
                  +7
                  At least within the framework of the school curriculum you can know ...
                  What's the point? laughing Better to write gag. The author of the real nonsense wrote “England became an exporter of uprisings and revolutions.” In the first comment, the right question was asked and the comments rushed in response ... laughing , read and think people did you go to school? Not a single fact, but how profound the answers are. laughing
                  1. bober1982
                    bober1982 8 October 2020 17: 00 New
                    -3
                    Quote: Daniil Konovalenko
                    Author real nonsense wrote

                    For real boys and wrote.
                2. bober1982
                  bober1982 8 October 2020 16: 59 New
                  -3
                  Quote: kalibr
                  At least within the framework of the school curriculum you can know ...

                  Soviet school curriculum?
                  1. kalibr
                    kalibr 8 October 2020 17: 56 New
                    +3
                    The modern school curriculum on the history of the ancient world and the Middle Ages is much richer. You can take textbooks and compare ... But at worst it will do too.
                  2. vladcub
                    vladcub 8 October 2020 19: 06 New
                    +3
                    Although within the framework of the Soviet textbook. At least chronology and logic are present. Just what the author lacked and lacks
                    1. pmkemcity
                      pmkemcity 9 October 2020 14: 14 New
                      0
                      Quote: vladcub
                      Although within the framework of the Soviet textbook.
            2. vladcub
              vladcub 8 October 2020 18: 37 New
              +4
              Q. Oh, don't you know that graphomancy is a serious ailment .. Graphomancy NEVER read and think, they write and write
    2. Same lech
      Same lech 8 October 2020 08: 33 New
      +4
      England exported pirates well ... even these butchers were hired to serve.
      1. Catfish
        Catfish 8 October 2020 15: 34 New
        +8
        Well, there weren't just butchers among them. Drake was the second to make a round-the-world trip, compiled maps along the traversed path and, unlike Magellan, not only did not lose a single ship, but also plundered so much that he had to throw silver overboard because Drake dismissed the idea of ​​throwing the cannons immediately. William Dampier also became famous for drawing fairly accurate maps, and not just robbery. Thomas Dover, captain and physician rolled into one, his "Dover Tincture" is still used in medicine today.
        So not everything was so simple there ... hi
        1. vladcub
          vladcub 8 October 2020 18: 32 New
          +1
          Kostya, welcome. I have never heard of Dover.
          In fact, if you think about it, there were no "gentlemen" at that time. No, perhaps they were, but they were not among the sailors.
          1. Catfish
            Catfish 8 October 2020 18: 54 New
            +1
            Good evening, Slava. hi
            ... but they were not among the sailors.

            So after all, the profession itself imposes, not to politeness. Yes, to be honest, I don’t think that the then overland public also suffered from "gentlemanly", in our understanding. Romance is one thing, real life is another. smile
            1. vladcub
              vladcub 8 October 2020 19: 00 New
              +3
              This is yes. In women's novels, such gentlemen are described, but in nature
              1. Catfish
                Catfish 8 October 2020 19: 10 New
                +2
                And in nature, dirt, blood, double-dealing and sheer abomination. As, however, in any other country of that time.
        2. parusnik
          parusnik 8 October 2020 19: 01 New
          +3
          hi
          England perfectly exported pirates
          Think about this phrase ... In other words, England offered its pirates to serve other states ... You at least know, at least one case, if yes write ... Although, you know, I thought ... maybe the author of the commentary has the sight of those Englishmen who were in the Russian service?
          1. Catfish
            Catfish 8 October 2020 19: 07 New
            +2
            Think about this phrase ... In other words, England offered its pirates to serve other states ... You at least know, at least one case, if yes write ...

            In my opinion, you are addressing the wrong address, this is for you to the author of the comment - the same LYOKHA (Alexey), and I do not know which of the famous English pirates served any other crown, except for the British one.
            And the British, since the reign of Peter I, had enough in the service in Russia, but whether they were previously pirates I do not know. hi
            1. parusnik
              parusnik 8 October 2020 19: 22 New
              +4
              By the address smile Supported your comment ... To the same Lehe, unsubscribed .. hi
              1. Catfish
                Catfish 8 October 2020 19: 24 New
                +5
                Then it is understandable and thanks for the support. smile drinks
            2. vladcub
              vladcub 8 October 2020 20: 08 New
              +1
              "were they pirates before?" Kostya, I now remember Captain Pamburg, do you remember how Alexei Tolstoy says that a pirate is in the past. But Pamburgh is probably German, and Admiral Korneley Kreis may be British. Actually, I only know about them from Tolstoy's novel. Perhaps you know more?
              1. Undecim
                Undecim 8 October 2020 23: 02 New
                +3
                Peter von Pamburgh is German, Cornelius Cruis is Norwegian.
                1. vladcub
                  vladcub 9 October 2020 13: 51 New
                  +1
                  VN, thanks for the clarification. Apart from Tolstoy, I once heard the mention of Kreis on TV and that's it. Actually, I assumed that Pamburgh was German.
              2. Catfish
                Catfish 9 October 2020 01: 24 New
                +3
                Here, Slava, Vic Nick explained everything to us, and the Danes and the Swedes were there later.
                1. vladcub
                  vladcub 9 October 2020 13: 56 New
                  +1
                  It is good that there is such a connoisseur, but now they write so much nonsense. Directly some kind of epidemic of graphomania.
                  Probably all general literacy is also not Gut?
                  1. Catfish
                    Catfish 9 October 2020 16: 35 New
                    +1
                    It's just that people see what kind of crap all and sundry are now publishing in mass circulation, and they reasonably believe, "And I'm worse !?", so a bunch of all kinds of pseudo-historical literature, and even with "pictures", falls on the shelves. wassat
      2. parusnik
        parusnik 8 October 2020 18: 23 New
        +5
        England exported pirates well.
        .... To which countries were the exports? ... Sorry, but some kind of insanity on the export of revolutions and pirates by England in the XNUMXth century, don't you think? Speaking of pirates, did the British supply their pirates to Algerian pirates, France?
    3. Bar1
      Bar1 8 October 2020 08: 37 New
      -6
      when, for some reason, the golden calf suddenly gains strength and the huckster's principle - everything is sold becomes the main thing in society, then the old order collapses.
      And the previous order is such that our ancestors, i.e. the previous civilization was able to build stone structures, pyramids, aqueducts, huge temples like the temple of "Jupiter" and everything else, and modern civilization built on the power of the golden calf cannot repeat the achievements of the past, this leads to the emergence of a huge number of problems. nature pays for it, which capitalism always uses predatory. Forests are cut down, rivers are shallow, the land is polluted and ceases to bear fruit, the oceans turn into garbage.
      Capitalist cities are overpopulated and become concrete juggles in which to live is very uncomfortable and uncomfortable.
      The traders seize the colonies and live off the robbery of the world, gaining all the wealth and leaving behind a desert.
      How should it be otherwise if the power of the golden calf had not been released from the bottle?
      Well, these are examples of Russian society, when the land always belongs to those who cultivate it, i.e. collective, society, WORLD. This is what Marx called "primitive communism". But these "classics" of Marxism are most likely either mistaken or their "socio-economic formations" are deliberate misleading. However, we already see this behind "socialism" in The USSR became a friend of the capitalism of Russia, and so according to their theory it could not be, socialism must be followed by communism.
      With Ilf and Petrov, the newly baked millionaire suddenly realizes that the power of the golden calf does not work in this country and that buying a house or land is NOT POSSIBLE, everything belongs to the people. And rightly so.
      1. Hantengri
        Hantengri 8 October 2020 10: 58 New
        +5
        Quote: Bar1
        However, we can already see this, for "socialism" in the USSR capitalism of Russia came to a friend, but according to their theory it could not be, for socialism must come communism.

        You, I see a great expert on Marxism! Do not remind me in what work of his Marx described the details of building socialism / communism in one, separately taken country?
      2. AllBiBek
        AllBiBek 8 October 2020 10: 58 New
        +9
        You would, my dear man, before you litter resources, where you hang out in the comments, with all sorts of nonsense, which you read and eventually caught guru syndrome - even if you cleaned copy-paste, or something ...
        This is done simply: copy it into a notebook, from it into a Word, then turn on the display of hidden characters, and remove forced hyphenation.
        Delov - for half a minute, and the effect - at first glance, it will seem as if they themselves wrote.
      3. vladcub
        vladcub 8 October 2020 17: 59 New
        +2
        Bar, about the "golden calf", which is called not in the eyebrow, but in the eye. We now see how this little calf runs and "frolics"
        1. Bar1
          Bar1 8 October 2020 18: 46 New
          -1
          Quote: vladcub
          Bar, about the "golden calf", which is called not in the eyebrow, but in the eye. We now see how this little calf runs and "frolics"

          The golden calf is a story from the Old Testament. Why the "chosen by God", despite being God's chosen one, persistently prayed to this golden calf, it is not clear, probably really helped. There are true symbols of the tour and place names Turkestan / Turan / Turin in history, but what exactly they expressed is not known. It is likely that Tur was also a cult when it was not only among the Jews.
          In general, of course, it is more logical to worship our today's world, some kind of god of trade or deception (you can't live, you can't live), which is very typical for this people, but historically a golden calf fell under the distribution.
    4. AllBiBek
      AllBiBek 8 October 2020 10: 55 New
      0
      For a start - to Holland.
      Erasmus of Rotterdam, for example.
      Have you heard about this?
      But they were called to the kings.
      As a result, the entire proletariat (and many of them have become from among the middle class) are addicted to such a vile Dutch swill like a genie.
      But that is another story
      1. pmkemcity
        pmkemcity 9 October 2020 14: 20 New
        0
        Quote: AllBiBek
        the proletariat (and many of them have become from among the middle class)

        proletarius - "producing offspring" (from Lat. "proles" - "pro + alo" - "for + to grow, educate")
    5. vladcub
      vladcub 8 October 2020 17: 55 New
      +3
      You need to ask Samsonov about this. Probably, his word got better, and the meaning and logic are secondary. However, Samsonov has a brand name
    6. Alexander Kopelevich
      Alexander Kopelevich 13 November 2020 12: 55 New
      0
      Fronde in France means
  2. lucul
    lucul 8 October 2020 10: 44 New
    -1
    Unlike France or Spain, England was no longer an aristocratic state, but a commercial one. The tribal nobility was carved out in centuries of strife. In particular, during the War of the Scarlet and White Rose in the XNUMXth century. The aristocracy was replaced by gentry - "new nobles" who emerged from the wealthy merchants and usurers.

    Well, in 1640 moneylenders came to power in England.
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 8 October 2020 11: 17 New
      +1
      Quote: lucul
      Well, in 1640 moneylenders came to power in England

      The king's supporters, the royalists, lost and supporters of parliament came to power.
    2. Cartalon
      Cartalon 8 October 2020 11: 20 New
      +3
      And that was very good at least for England.
      Or will they prove to us that under the rule of the absolute king of England it would be much better?
      1. bober1982
        bober1982 8 October 2020 11: 32 New
        0
        It was not so good - the civil war, executions and massacres, the restoration of the Stuarts, all these ethnic cleansing, in modern terms.
        1. Cartalon
          Cartalon 8 October 2020 15: 59 New
          +1
          Industrial Revolution, Empire, no?
  3. iouris
    iouris 8 October 2020 11: 37 New
    +2
    Everything has already happened in history. Instead of composing an ideology, we would study and study the history of England. And also the story of Dr. Greece and dr. Rome.
  4. Undecim
    Undecim 8 October 2020 11: 50 New
    14
    The author in his own style - if something in the story does not fit into his "vision" - so much the worse for the story and the author boldly misinterprets it at his own discretion.
    The aristocracy was replaced by gentry - "new nobles" who emerged from the wealthy merchants and usurers.
    Here the car, as the classics say, is a lie.
    The Gentry is the lowest layer of the English nobility, the noble class (lesser nobility), to which, as a rule, in the class relation belonged those who in the sources of manorial history appear as a knight - a knight, an esquire - an esquire, a gentleman - a gentleman, a squire - an armiger.
    The upper layer of the English nobility, the aristocracy - dukes, marquises, earls, viscounts and barons could in no way be replaced by gentry.
    The author would go to school, at his desk, and he writes articles on history. But children can read it too.
    1. Daniil Konovalenko
      Daniil Konovalenko 8 October 2020 12: 10 New
      +7
      Judging by some of the comments, the children read, the children responded ..
    2. arturpraetor
      arturpraetor 8 October 2020 13: 27 New
      10
      Iehh, and I never got to the gentry proposal. Thereafter:
      Unlike France or Spain, England was no longer an aristocratic state, but a commercial one. The tribal nobility was carved out in centuries of strife.

      I immediately realized that the author of the article is Samsonov, and the article itself is a complete slag. What substances do you have to deal with in order to make such crazy statements? Is this pre-Cromwellian England a purely trading country? Was the nobility massacred in centuries of strife? Does your uncle know the history of Britain in general, or does he invent it on the go?
      1. vladcub
        vladcub 8 October 2020 18: 19 New
        +5
        Artem, you asked a difficult question, I have no idea how to answer it, and the author has no time. As long as I "live" here on the site, some remember me from the "first" life, I NEVER SEEN TO COMMUNICATE with us. THEM NEVER
    3. Bar1
      Bar1 8 October 2020 14: 32 New
      -3
      Quote: Undecim
      The upper layer of the English nobility, the aristocracy - dukes, marquises, earls, viscounts and barons could in no way be replaced by gentry.

      Here is such a message on this site.


      this is a Rothschild, a Jew grabbed half of the world, from rags to riches.
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 8 October 2020 14: 48 New
        +9
        Do you have a thought and do you think it? Can you explain it clearly? Was the Jew Rothschild an English gentry?
        1. Bar1
          Bar1 8 October 2020 15: 07 New
          -4
          how dull
          These Rothschilds of the mean rank were small shopkeepers, usurers, then they got rich, began to buy up land, became bankers, then received titles of nobility, some English Jewish Rothschilds climbed into the House of Lords, and this is an inherited place and of course they moved someone from there.
          The Rothschilds, intermingled with the peers of England, became peers themselves.
          Don't you know that?
          So, we shoot from the Congo.
          1. Undecim
            Undecim 8 October 2020 15: 26 New
            +8
            You've obviously made a discovery for yourself by reading the history of the Rothschild family. My congratulations.
            Now try to delve into the history of the House of Lords and the British aristocracy. Maybe then you will realize the full depth of your ignorance.
            1. Bar1
              Bar1 8 October 2020 15: 37 New
              -4
              Quote: Undecim
              You've obviously made a discovery for yourself by reading the history of the Rothschild family. My congratulations.
              Now try to delve into the history of the House of Lords and the British aristocracy. Maybe then you will realize the full depth of your ignorance.

              laughing
        2. kalibr
          kalibr 8 October 2020 18: 01 New
          +2
          We will soon have a new expression on VO: "Don't get on the bar!" ...
          1. Bar1
            Bar1 8 October 2020 19: 48 New
            -2
            Quote: kalibr
            We will soon have a new expression on VO: "Don't get on the bar!" ...


            will not appear, not in a warehouse. But in general, from a sore head to a healthy one, but to play around with history is very similar to what is happening with your articles.
            1. vladcub
              vladcub 8 October 2020 20: 16 New
              +3
              Bar, actually V.O. is such an author that although you don't agree with him, you still read it carefully. Not all authors can write as V.O.
    4. AK1972
      AK1972 8 October 2020 14: 42 New
      +1
      Quote: Undecim
      The Gentry is the lowest layer of the English nobility, the noble class (lesser nobility), to which, as a rule, in the class relation belonged those who in the sources of manorial history appear as a knight - a knight, an esquire - an esquire, a gentleman - a gentleman, a squire - an armiger.

      I may be wrong, but in my opinion Esquire is the squire (shield bearer). The word "armiger" is also used in the sense of "squire", but I have not seen the prefix "armiger" to the name of a nobleman. I think this is the same Esq.
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 8 October 2020 17: 51 New
        +7
        Esquire can be either a title or a position (shield bearer, squire).
  5. vladcub
    vladcub 8 October 2020 18: 09 New
    +4
    Admins, Comrades, I'm terribly glad to see you. Now I looked over the top, at the headings. Oh my god, how much awesome stuff I missed.!
    When I sleep: I have to work during the day (eat hotts every day), family, keep up with new material, follow
  6. vladcub
    vladcub 8 October 2020 18: 50 New
    +2
    "if we compare with the Western powers, then everything in Russia was not so bad" everything is learned in comparison. In Russia, the patriarchal principles have traditionally been strong, and even now we hold traditional values ​​in high esteem and can clean up their snouts.
    1. parusnik
      parusnik 8 October 2020 19: 03 New
      +2
      hi Sava, glad to appear ...
    2. Undecim
      Undecim 8 October 2020 20: 02 New
      +4
      Blue here seems to be out of place, although there are fans to stick them where it is necessary and not necessary.
  7. Sergey Oreshin
    Sergey Oreshin 8 October 2020 21: 11 New
    +4
    We expect that soon Mr. Samsonov will cry over the "innocently murdered" King Charles and the "innocently cut out" and expelled into exile English aristocrats.
    And also scold the revolutionaries who dare to encroach on the privileges of the crown, and then on the "sacred and inviolable" life of the "dearest monarch".
    Apparently, some order went from above to denigrate all revolutions and the struggle of the oppressed against the oppressors, so all sorts of gentlemen are trying to the best of their ability
    1. vladcub
      vladcub 9 October 2020 14: 03 New
      0
      Generally speaking, our "historian" is close to sailors. Perhaps you studied together?
  8. Sergey Oreshin
    Sergey Oreshin 8 October 2020 21: 13 New
    +4
    Well, in general, the degradation of the site is obvious. A few years ago there were quite good-quality articles about the English Revolution and the Civil War in England, and now - excuse me, it sucks in the performance of a mediocre graphomaniac
    1. vladcub
      vladcub 9 October 2020 14: 10 New
      0
      Oreshkin Sergey. I need Karl 1 Stewart like a cow a saddle, but in fairness, Cromwell is a good piggy too. ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE THE CIVIL WAR IS A PEOPLE'S DISASTER.
  9. Sergey Oreshin
    Sergey Oreshin 8 October 2020 21: 17 New
    +2
    Quote: Cartalon
    Or will they prove to us that under the rule of the absolute king of England it would be much better?

    And you have not noticed yet that we have such an order in Russia clearly from above - to vilify all the revolutions that have ever been and in every possible way to "prove" that under the rule of autocratic monarchs the Russians (British, French, Germans, Austrians, Spaniards, Ethiopians, Chinese, Persians, Turks - substitute the right people) lived "just fine" until the "godless revolutionaries" came?
  10. Sergey Oreshin
    Sergey Oreshin 8 October 2020 21: 23 New
    +3
    Quote: bober1982
    Without the English revolution there would not have been a French revolution, without the French there would have been no all these European revolutions of the first half of the XNUMXth century, and then there would be no Russian revolutions.

    And until now, idlers-aristocrats would rule us, tsars would sit on the thrones, whom no one chose anywhere, the boyars-landowners would enjoy life and parasitize for their pleasure, you would plow on the master for food in the village without the right to leave him ( because serfdom, my dear, St. George's day was canceled! if you try to leave the owner, they will find you, whip them with a whip until they lose their pulse and return them back), your bride would have been fucked by the master on the "right of the first night", then he would also have fucked your daughters.
    Nothing to say, "happy present". But then - no revolutions, aha!
    1. Undecim
      Undecim 8 October 2020 21: 57 New
      +4
      your bride on the "right of the first night" would be fucked by the master
      Taking into account modern trends, the master could not be limited to the bride and inquire about the groom.
    2. vladcub
      vladcub 9 October 2020 14: 25 New
      0
      “The tsars would sit on the supports”, but you don’t think that we are beginning to guess, like on a camomile, “loves, does not love”.
      I have a doubt that the autocracy would have survived even now. Nobody canceled the law of development. Once there was a feudal fragmentation, when it began to interfere with development, it was replaced by a centralized power. So it is with autocracy, as long as it does not interfere with development, it exists
  11. Sergey Oreshin
    Sergey Oreshin 8 October 2020 21: 28 New
    +5
    Quote: bober1982
    Namely, after the English revolution, the republican system was first established (temporarily), which was new and unusual for Europe,

    Yes well, seriously ???
    Iceland with its Althingi, and the Italian republics in the Middle Ages (Genoa, Venice, Florence, the Lombard League, etc.), and the communes in Flanders in the same Middle Ages, and the Swiss Confederation, which arose in the XIV century, and the Republic of the United Provinces in the XVI century. type do not count?)))
    Well, about the republics in Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome (and all educated Europeans of that time knew their history well) I will modestly keep silent
  12. Sergey Oreshin
    Sergey Oreshin 8 October 2020 21: 29 New
    +5
    Quote: arturpraetor
    Does your uncle know the history of Britain in general, or does he invent it on the go?

    Mr. Samsonov knows little about the history of Russia, let alone Britain
  13. Lynx2000
    Lynx2000 9 October 2020 07: 57 New
    +2
    what
    I remember a course of lectures on "Fundamentals of Economics Theory" of economics faculty:
    A revolution is a radical, rapid change in the socio-political system.
    Was there a king at the head of England? Yes.
    From the 14th century. the source of lawmaking was the king? Yes.
    Parliament (both chambers) performed the functions of an advisor and supplicant, through appeals, petitions and bills? Yes.
    So in England there was a socio-political system - a monarchy, not a trading state (as the author writes).
    What were the preconditions for the conflict between the king and society (represented by his representatives in parliament)? In opposition, first to Jacob 1, then to Karl 1, in the establishment of absolute power, especially in the field of finance, that is, taxation and independent management of the collected money.
    In contrast to the monarchies of continental Europe, in England all estates were taxpayers.
    And the so-called "commercial England" had perverted forms. Yes, they produced in an industrial volume: cloth, paper, timber was processed, England was the watch center. Trading and insurance companies were established. Foreign trade increased (exports exceeded imports). However, thanks to royal decrees, there were many monopolies, the violation of the rules of which was threatened with punishment.
    How was Cromwell's dictatorship better than royalty?
    Then there was the restoration of the monarchy ...
  14. kalibr
    kalibr 9 October 2020 10: 13 New
    0
    Quote: Bar1
    will not appear, not in the warehouse

    So after all, the original of this expression is also not in the warehouse. But everyone uses it ...
  15. Sergey Oreshin
    Sergey Oreshin 9 October 2020 14: 21 New
    0
    Quote: vladcub
    Cromwell is a good pig too

    It is clear that if we evaluate it from the point of view of modern morality.
    In general, Cromwell was the spokesman for the interests of his social class. Therefore, he crushed the royalists and suppressed the monarchist counter-revolution, but, on the other hand, suppressed the left movements of the Levellers and Diggers just as brutally.
    Quote: vladcub
    ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE THE CIVIL WAR IS A PEOPLE'S DISASTER.

    Disaster, who can argue ... But what remains to be done when the greedy "elite", mired in corruption and oppressing the working people, does not want to voluntarily surrender power?
    With regard to England, the blame for unleashing the Civil War lies with the king and his court camarilla, who regarded all other estates as "" and wished to rule autocraticly, impose arbitrary taxes, impose duties on the population, etc.
    1. vladcub
      vladcub 9 October 2020 17: 26 New
      0
      "He suppressed the left movement of levellers and dealers," but he really needs them: he has already seized power and, first of all, under the knife of competitors.
      And Robespierre did the same. I’m thinking: if not for the naive Charlotte Corday, perhaps Marat would have shared the fate of Danton?
  16. andrew42
    andrew42 9 October 2020 15: 22 New
    0
    From baron knight-robber to robber-usurer, this is the true genesis of the British Kingdom and the subsequent Empire. And when viewed in the context of the Country (and not just the state), it is a long and systematic “observation” of the masses, starting with Guillaume Bastard and ending with the famous “Lord Protector.” After this, the quality of the ethnos became such that the saying "The king feeds his archers well" lost its meaning - from this it became possible to sculpt anything.
  17. andrew42
    andrew42 9 October 2020 15: 24 New
    -1
    And if you rise above the forest, then the "bourgeois revolution" is the most disgusting phenomenon in the history of human society since the days of the digging stick.
  18. Sergey Oreshin
    Sergey Oreshin 9 October 2020 15: 43 New
    0
    Quote: vladcub
    So it is with autocracy, as long as it does not interfere with development, it exists

    And when it starts to hinder development - that's when revolutions take place, and the autocracy comes over
  19. Sergey Oreshin
    Sergey Oreshin 9 October 2020 15: 45 New
    0
    Quote: andrew42
    And if you rise above the forest, then the "bourgeois revolution" is the most disgusting phenomenon in the history of human society since the days of the digging stick.

    One might think that the power of autocratic monarchs by "God's grace" and the aristocracy is better.
    Bourgeois-democratic revolutions are a natural result of the development of society
  20. Sergey Oreshin
    Sergey Oreshin 9 October 2020 19: 27 New
    0
    Quote: vladcub
    and what a fig he needs them

    Not so much to him as to the ruling class that came to power after the revolution, to whom the left movements were dangerous, and therefore the bourgeoisie defeated them with the hands of Cromwell. Who was the spokesman for the interests of the new ruling class.
    Quote: vladcub
    and Marat would have shared the fate of Danton?

    Who knows, but it seems to me that on the contrary, Marat could rally the sans-culottes, prevent their mutual extermination in the context of foreign intervention and strengthen the Republic. A sort of "French Lenin"
  21. unknown
    unknown 10 October 2020 08: 50 New
    0
    What the hell is a seventeenth century revolution?
    Moreover, in the so-called Britain?
    A country of usurers and traders?
    That is, in the country of the railway?
    This word has nothing to do with nationality or religion.
    But, straightforward, to the estate. Third.
    And how the island traded.
    How did you transport goods to the mainland and back?
    On ships?
    Did the technology of building ships exist then?
    And what equipment and technology was used for the edged board?
    The traditional history began to crumble when specialists with technical education began to study it.