Does anyone else, when reading about the English Civil War, get the ISIS vibe from the Roundhead iconoclasm? They ransacked houses looking for all religious images and burning them, they literally shot up statues with guns, they smashed stained windows, they burned all crosses they could find, they sliced up all religious paintings, they made alters into roads, shit was insane.
They also just seemed crazy in general
>The Harleys made sure the vicar of their local church at Brampton was of their kind. At the end of the 1630's a man called Stanley Gower was the incumbent; on arrival in 1634 he had set about overlooking those regulations of the Laudian Church offensive to the godly. He wouldn't let his parishioners stand during the Gospel, nor bow at the name of Jesus; he left the absolution out of the prayer book's service, he refused to rail the alter, still treating it as a movable communion table, and he told his congregation not to kneel in prayer and not to remove their hats.
Protestants were basically the Christian Wahhabis of their day, yeah.
>>1423522
>sports are haram
>Christmas is haram
>plays are haram
>wedding rings are haram
>maypoles are haram
Where the hell did they get all this from?
>>1423516
I liked it when they piss in the font
>>1423516
Didn't they make women cover their hair and bodies too?
>>1423516
Roundheads were straight up ISIS of the day.
Ethnic cleansing included.
>>1423543
Did they? I'm not surprised, I read about them making the fonts into wash sinks.
>>1423556
Yes, especially compared to the royal court at the time, which had female breasts--despite the king and the queen both being very religious--exposed in some masques (royal plays that featured elaborate costumes and permitted female actors, Shakespeare's Tempest might have been one--regular plays couldn't have female actors because radical Protestants would riot)
>>1423516
You refer to ISIS as if you know anything about them
>>1423575
I refer to ISIS as if they are fanatical iconoclasts. Are you disputing that?
>>1423590
I don't think you have any substantial evidence to back up your assertions about the nature of ISIS
>>1423604
You don't think I have any substantial evidence to back up the assertion that they're radical iconoclasts?
>>1423516
Not really. The faith of the Puritans demands that images be removed from the place of worship. It did NOT demand that artifacts of human civilization be demolished for an apocalyptic purpose. There's a huge difference.
It's terrible that statues and stained glass were DESTROYED by iconoclasts. It was NOT terrible that they be removed from the Kirk of God.
It is equally understandable why the chasuble and stole were removed. The minister of God should wear the uniform of his office, but the liturgical seasons are a violation of the Lord's Day, the Sabbath as carried on from the 4th commandment. The absolution does belong if it is adapted by the proper understanding of the Gospel.
Honestly, as ridiculous as some of the English Puritan stands were, it was much more ridiculous what was REQUIRED by the papists. To anyone who sees it as silly that someone would die over the question of whether to have kneelers in the churches, think how much more ridiculous it is to REQUIRE the people of God, without any divine command, to kneel at a specific time.
That said, Cromwell was a dickhead. But he isn't the standard for the Puritans. There are multiple accounts of Puritans imprisoned in the Tower of London playing card games. What Catholic would have allowed that at the time?
>>1423516
Puritans go full on crazy when they go to Murica!!
Good thing the Anglican Church and based Caroline Divines opposed them
>>1423649
The Puritans said we should have heaven in our eye throughout our earthly pilgrimage. They took seriously the Scriptures passages striving to bring every action in conformity with Christ, so that believers would mature and grow in faith.
>>1423516
>protestants
Burger here,
I have an interest in the English Civil War but i've never had the chance to study it in an academic setting (being that most people in the States assume "English Civil War" to refer to the Wars of the Roses).
I have listened to the Revolutions Podcast series on the English Civil war which I think was a good broad overview, but I want to go deeper.
What is some good literature on the subject?
I would prefer reading more about the military side of the conflict, as military history is my main focus, but a solid overview of the cultural, economic, and religious, factors that went into the conflict would be nice as well.
I am also interested in supplemental media like novels set in the time period or documentaries and podcasts and the like.
>>1423649
>Royalists were Papists
What
>>1423682
I like the English Civil War, by Diane Purkiss. It covers the war from the perspectives of both men and women, high and low class, Roundhead and Royalist, through things like letters and diary entries. If you want a "human" understanding of the factors of the war, it's really good, plus it's extremely readable.
>>1423728
They were.
>>1423522
that's actually quite interesting since today the protestant countries are the most secular ones.
Is it true the puritans emigrated from Europe to America mainly because of surrounding society ((such as the netherlands)) being to tolerant of others than intolerant of them?
>>1423839
The tallest fall the hardest?
>>1423682
I am but a lowly amateur military historian, so all I've read about the ECW is from Osprey books. Books from this publisher are good as an introduction, but they aren't the best.
You might want to start off with anything by Brig. Peter Young, then follow up with something else that corrects his glaring mistakes. I feel Peter Young is an important part of the ECW historiography, and shouldn't be just brushed aside straight away.
>>1423843
Yes. They had freedom of religion in the Netherlands. But they wanted to create a whole society based on only THEIR religion, which they could only do in America. When people with different beliefs (like the Quakers) settled nearby, they killed them.
>>1423809
No they weren't...
>>1423843
"The New World" was thought of as a place to do things better than "The Old World". Puritans left for America because they wanted to leave and set up a better society; they didn't really leave because they were persecuted. I'd agree with your point, perhaps their idea of a better society involves one without papists and papist-sympathisers.
>Down with popery!
>And I don't much like scented candles either!
>>1423882
As well as protestants who disagree with them?
Or were they labeled "papist sympatisers"?
>>1423850
>>1423886
Sorry, I was speaking without knowing just why the Puritans didn't like the Netherlands, and made a guess it had something to do with papists and anyone who lets papists live with them.
>>1423535
>ancestor sailed across the ocean because of this
>>1423899
>>1423886
>As well as protestants who disagree with them?
The idea that "protestants" are a thing is a joke meme on /his/. A protestant was just any western European Christian who rejected the authority of the pope. There is nothing else in common between them.
>>1423913
It's just Catholic retards spreading this nonsense.
>>1423913
>western European
Eastern European too
>>1423839
Not really, take Murryfatland
>>1424506
America is extremely secular. In fact many European protestant nations still have state churches (England and some of the Lutheran Nordics) so they're far less secular than the US
>>1423839
well what else would you expect from heretics?
>>1424431
>Eastern European too
A eastern european that doesn't recognise the authority of the pope is very likely orthodox, not protestant.
>>1424552
Jan Hus, John Laski, Tranoscius etc. Bohemia and Hungary were majority Protestant until the Habsburg counter reformation.
>>1423857
>radical prods settle new world
>get btfo by negligence and winter
>get saved by literal heathens
lol
>>1424569
>believing meme folk mythology
>>1424560
Now there's that discussion on how one defines eastern europe.
>>1424528
Ahhaha kek Kys
>>1424590
>/int/ retard browses /his/ for the first time: the post
>>1424569
The Plymouth colony only had one bad winter the first year they settled because of poor timing and they didn't know new world crops or animals that well. They began doing extremely well for themselves once they figured out/were taught what to grow and how to grow it.
The Jamestown colony on the other hand had like 5 terrible winters where they almost died because the colonists were obsessed with searching for gold (in fucking coastal Virginia), and they set up their colonial center in a literal swamp. Even after the natives taught them how to grow corn they still couldn't be assed to prepare properly for winter. When John Smith tried to force the colonists to actually prepare properly for winter they practically lynched him.
It wasn't until they figured out how to cultivate tobacco (and it's massive explosion in popularity in England) that the Jamestown colony started to prosper.
Don't get the two mixed up. The Plymouth colony/Massachusetts colonies (the Protestant colonies) only had some slight difficulties at first, the Jamestown and Virginia colonies were the ones that struggled so bad the first few years because of colonial retardation.
>>1424569
Ive heard that some european settlers, who found themselves as a minority surrounded by indians actually tried to integrate and let their hair grow long while emulating some of their rites as long as they werent too different.
>>1423839
The retarded ones all fucked off to murrica and the rest reintegrated into the catholic world.
After some hundred years after the split, the proddys in europe picked up catholic festivals and "pagan" rites such as maypole dancing up again which were hated by their forebears.
>>1425079
>some slight difficulties at first,
I mean, most of your post is accurate, but that's a very understated way of saying "everyone almost died."
>>1424528
>In fact many European protestant nations still have state churches (England and some of the Lutheran Nordics) so they're far less secular than the US
that doesn't mean much in practice. i live in finland and this country is so secular that most de facto atheists don't even bother to resign from the church because it doesn't have any of that "rebelling" aspect it does in places like america. it's actually event worth noting if you meet a young adult who believes in god here.
>>1425166
>The retarded ones all fucked off to murrica
You mean brave ones?
>>1425198
Sorry, but we got rid of a lot of weirdass cultists who were deemed as asocial.
Surely, a lot of brave souls and freethinkers who wanted to escape the rigid social order of europe also founded america, but there is a reason american christianity developed much differently to the european one, while south american christianity is more similar just with another pagan admixture in contrast to the indoeuropean elelments in european christianity.
Papist idols ought to be destroyed and papist idolaters persecuted
>>1423913
you are fucking retarded.
>>1423535
Nice meme
>>1425286
no u r
Cromwell did no genocide whatsoever. And the Irish putting their fingers in their ears every time somebody tells them this doesn't change facts.
>>1423516
In 500 years kids will be told they have ISIS to thank for religious freedom and democracy.
>>1425405
>what is the great potatoe famine?
>>1425471
Didn't know Cromwell lived to 1845, Paddy.
>>1425194
>in practice
Fact: As an American my tax money isn't spent on catholics or baptists or mormons. While in those nordic countries the church is literally funded by taxes. To claim America isn't one of the most secular states on Earth is pure lunacy.
>>1425288
They literally banned all this
>>1426653
So you are saying the church is so weak in those places it can't even survive without government handouts?
>>1426750
No and I don't frankly care, it's a fact their church is affiliated with the state and funded by the taxpayer. That's the literal opposite of secularism.
>>1426653
well yeah, taxes collected by the church itself. no one is forcing you to pay them if you're not a member of that church.
