Guy Fawkes and Gunpowder Plotters - Freedom Fighters or Terrorists?

[MorgantheBook]

In England in November 1605, a group, including Guy Fawkes, led by Robert Catesby, planned to kill Protestant King James I and many others by blowing up Parliament. They also planned to kidnap Princess Elizabeth, convert her to the Catholic faith and place her on the throne. History shows they did not succeed. Instead they were captured, tortured and executed, like Fawkes, or killed on the run, like Catesby.

The reason they created the Gunpowder Plot was due to the persecution of Catholics by King James and his government. In particular, they believed he had promised toleration but he instead tightened the clampdown. Today we would definitely call them terrorists. They would have killed many innocent people, including people of their own faith but they would have considered themselves freedom fighters, with few other choices to attempt to get the change they wanted and thought was just.

If they had succeeded, they may have well started a civil war in England in 1605 - or may there have been a third way?

What do forum members think?

 

[desmirelle]

I think the self-promo bit goes in your signature, not the body of the post. But I could be wrong. (It happens!)

 

[MorgantheBook]

I think the self-promo bit goes in your signature, not the body of the post. But I could be wrong. (It happens!)

Thanks - sorry about that - quite new to the forum - I've removed the link from the post.

 

[desmirelle]

I hope you checked before you acted....just add a signature to promote it.

I'm not infallible or I'd be totally unbearable!

 

[frustrated progressive]

Isn't this a Chat subject?

 

[Germania09]

"One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter"

 

[Tripledot]

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Cf. Irish revolutionaries (or for a less controversial example, one could say that the American revolutionaries engaged in terrorism as well).

 

[Gloss]

"One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter"

I find this saying weird, a terrorist is one who targets civilian targets for political purposes, one can be also a freedom fighter on top of that. Is not one or the other.

 

[Gloss]

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Cf. Irish revolutionaries (or for a less controversial example, one could say that the American revolutionaries engaged in terrorism as well).

I´m curious, what are some examples of those American revolutionaries terrorism?

 

[Tripledot]

I´m curious, what are some examples of those American revolutionaries terrorism?

I'm mainly thinking about the mob violence and tarring and feathering of customs officers.

 

[Gloss]

I'm mainly thinking about the mob violence and tarring and feathering of customs officers.

Did they ever target purely civilian objectives? I mean law enforcers while they could have not been military targets they were not simple British citizens.

 

[Germania09]

I find this saying weird, a terrorist is one who targets civilian targets for political purposes, one can be also a freedom fighter on top of that. Is not one or the other.

My point I was making was that that terms like are based on personal view, just because someone says Guy Fox was a terrorist another can argue he was a freedom fighter. But your point was and is valid and I agree with you on it.

 

[Derek Jackson]

They sought to impose their religious view by mass murder, terrorist is a just description

 

[Grey Wolf]

Yes. Both

At some point we are able to removed enough from events to say that

I personallly don't give much fuck for James I, so blow him up or not. It was all in the manner of the age

 

[Grey Wolf]

They sought to impose their religious view by mass murder, terrorist is a just description

Mass murder of the politicians and royalty, not of the public.


So yes and no

 

[desmirelle]

What were they trying to be free of? Their place in the societal hierarchy? They weren't trying to ditch the rule of a country that treated them like vassals (good for getting money, but not for taking care of their problems); they were trying to IMPOSE a new rule, not just say 'leave us alone and let us be catholics if we wanna' - that's the difference in the two. They were trying to take over, not be 'free'.

 

[Grey Wolf]

What were they trying to be free of? Their place in the societal hierarchy? They weren't trying to ditch the rule of a country that treated them like vassals (good for getting money, but not for taking care of their problems); they were trying to IMPOSE a new rule, not just say 'leave us alone and let us be catholics if we wanna' - that's the difference in the two. They were trying to take over, not be 'free'.

Er not really how legislation against Catholics worked

 

[Tripledot]

They sought to impose their religious view by mass murder, terrorist is a just description

If you use that definition, the monarch was also a terrorist.

 

[desmirelle]

Er not really how legislation against Catholics worked

No shit. Tell that to the Jews. What I was saying was that they weren't trying for anything better. And two wrongs do not a right make.

*Three lefts will do it, though*

 

[VVD0D95]

Terrorists who were trying to escape persecution