AHC:No Reformation

I'm kinda at a loss for how England - far from a strong or influential power - is the sole force preserving Protestantism.
The thing is, other Protestant factions before England has weak Army and Navy to beat the Catholic forces. Another factor is the fact that Britain is situated at the west-end of Europe, and is an island, this not only gives them defensive advantage, but also offensive and logistic advantage. And most importantly, it is England that proved that Spain is not invincible as everybody thought they were, this pave the way for the Thirty-Years' War.
What influence Russia had on Communism in that regard, I leave to the experts.
The thing is only Russia has all the right mix for communism to survive alone, and expand. If the Russian revolution falls, so is Communism altogether.
 
Sorry for the late reply, I forgot about this thread:eek:
Me neither, but Henry's "new religion" is Catholicism with an excuse to ignore the Pope and seize church property. If we were within Orthodoxy, it'd be barely more than a bog standard autocephalus church. It's hardly some kind of theological revolution.
I agree that Henry is basically ignoring the theological aspects personally, but there is no denying that he allowed, even encouraged, Protestantism to become dominant in the English aristocracy. While Henry's plan might have been an autocephalous church, his actions and the result of them were quite conducive to the spread of Protestant theology. In a world where the reformation hadn't been going on just then, Henry is probably a more successful John of England, and his successors reconcile with the church.
That's kind of what Henry did (underlined), although before rather than during their marriage is an interesting twist on "she slept with another man".
He did, but I suppose I was thinking of something more damning, like accusing her of infidelity, which would also throw Mary's paternity into question.
Another ruler might have chosen differently, but a ruler desperate to have sons (and with no male line nephews) converting to Protestantism - which did permit divorce - instead of the annulment hassle Henry picked - seems at least likely enough not to be a freak occurrence.

Dynastic security is worth (giving up) a mass, to misquote Henri IV.

A ruler in another situation - what kind of situation are we looking at? Just for clarity's sake
Another situation, well, I honestly can't think of another situation where Henry's authoritarian style reformation would have worked half as well as it did. Thanks to Henry VII he had no serious rival dynastic claimants for more pious people (both at home and abroad) to back. He also was geographically isolated from other rulers who might seek to gain from his apostacy. His traditional enemy was busy fighting a long series of wars with the Habsburgs. The backs of his nobility had been largely broken by his father, and as a result England was likely the most absolute monarchy in Europe.

Just to look at say, France for instance, any king who attempted this would have been replaced by a noble with even an ounce of royal blood. If the king held on through this he would have had to deal with Spanish and English (assuming they had not gone Protestant) intervention. Popular uprisings would probably appear periodically throughout his reign. It's not impossible, but it is far more difficult than what Henry had to deal with.

Also, since my comment about stillborn Protestantism got some attention, yes Protestantism could have survived in northern Germany and Scandinavia without Britain going Protestant, but without the English and Dutch we pretty much have Protestantism confined to those areas, given the poor colonial performance of Germany and Scandinavia. Looking at modern population, that leaves us with about 60-80 million Protestants in the world, provided that the alt-thirty years war is a Protestant victory. Also note that the Dutch were aided considerably by the English, and that they in turn were a significant combatant in the TYW, so Protestant victory is made at least nominally less likely by removing English Protestantism. Protestantism without England may not be crushed, but it definitely isn't the religion of Two of the first three superpowers.
 
The thing is, other Protestant factions before England has weak Army and Navy to beat the Catholic forces.

And other Protestants have stronger armies and navies to do so - why is this a point for "England made it possible"?

Another factor is the fact that Britain is situated at the west-end of Europe, and is an island, this not only gives them defensive advantage, but also offensive and logistic advantage. And most importantly, it is England that proved that Spain is not invincible as everybody thought they were, this pave the way for the Thirty-Years' War.

Technically, the Dutch did that, not the English - had they been failing, there wouldn't be English support, and thus the Armada.

The thing is only Russia has all the right mix for communism to survive alone, and expand. If the Russian revolution falls, so is Communism altogether.

I'm not saying otherwise, I'm just saying I can't argue one way or another here.

Sorry for the late reply, I forgot about this thread:eek:

No worries, I took it as you being busy with other things.

I agree that Henry is basically ignoring the theological aspects personally, but there is no denying that he allowed, even encouraged, Protestantism to become dominant in the English aristocracy. While Henry's plan might have been an autocephalous church, his actions and the result of them were quite conducive to the spread of Protestant theology. In a world where the reformation hadn't been going on just then, Henry is probably a more successful John of England, and his successors reconcile with the church.

There is that. But that isn't necessarily a point in favor of Henry as responsible for "creating" a religion.

We may be quibbling on this, but I think it is a distinction.

He did, but I suppose I was thinking of something more damning, like accusing her of infidelity, which would also throw Mary's paternity into question.

True. That would have been the normal route, that's for sure.

Another situation, well, I honestly can't think of another situation where Henry's authoritarian style reformation would have worked half as well as it did. Thanks to Henry VII he had no serious rival dynastic claimants for more pious people (both at home and abroad) to back.

Not untrue of earlier eras, but conveniently happening here.
He also was geographically isolated from other rulers who might seek to gain from his apostacy. His traditional enemy was busy fighting a long series of wars with the Habsburgs. The backs of his nobility had been largely broken by his father, and as a result England was likely the most absolute monarchy in Europe.

The first part is just part of being King of England, the other two are definitely strokes of fortune - not flukes, but fortune.

Just to look at say, France for instance, any king who attempted this would have been replaced by a noble with even an ounce of royal blood. If the king held on through this he would have had to deal with Spanish and English (assuming they had not gone Protestant) intervention. Popular uprisings would probably appear periodically throughout his reign. It's not impossible, but it is far more difficult than what Henry had to deal with.

There is that.

Also, since my comment about stillborn Protestantism got some attention, yes Protestantism could have survived in northern Germany and Scandinavia without Britain going Protestant, but without the English and Dutch we pretty much have Protestantism confined to those areas, given the poor colonial performance of Germany and Scandinavia. Looking at modern population, that leaves us with about 60-80 million Protestants in the world, provided that the alt-thirty years war is a Protestant victory. Also note that the Dutch were aided considerably by the English, and that they in turn were a significant combatant in the TYW, so Protestant victory is made at least nominally less likely by removing English Protestantism. Protestantism without England may not be crushed, but it definitely isn't the religion of Two of the first three superpowers.

Okay, that (underlined) I can agree with without reservation.
 
And other Protestants have stronger armies and navies to do so - why is this a point for "England made it possible"?
As I said earlier, it's geography that makes it possible. Britain is blessed to be situated at the right place and at the right time. And unlike the German and Hussite states, they have a relative room to expand into the New World, thus acquiring large amounts of resources, which can be used for war effort. Aside from resources, access to the New World also means that Britain will send colonists to the new world, thus spreading the faith to the natives. And having an advantageous position, they stemmed the Catholic monopoly of the Atlantic, something Denmark couldn't do. Why? Because Denmark is a pragmatic faction, they are threatened by fellow Protestant nations, and therefore, is willing to do Realpolitik with the Catholics, this was proven true during the 30 Years' War.
 
As I said earlier, it's geography that makes it possible. Britain is blessed to be situated at the right place and at the right time. And unlike the German and Hussite states, they have a relative room to expand into the New World, thus acquiring large amounts of resources, which can be used for war effort. Aside from resources, access to the New World also means that Britain will send colonists to the new world, thus spreading the faith to the natives. And having an advantageous position, they stemmed the Catholic monopoly of the Atlantic, something Denmark couldn't do. Why? Because Denmark is a pragmatic faction, they are threatened by fellow Protestant nations, and therefore, is willing to do Realpolitik with the Catholics, this was proven true during the 30 Years' War.

Which really has nothing to do with whether or not Protestantism would survive without it. Protestantism's survival was assured long before England had the resources from the New World or anywhere else to be a true Great Power.
 
Which really has nothing to do with whether or not Protestantism would survive without it. Protestantism's survival was assured long before England had the resources from the New World or anywhere else to be a true Great Power.

But the thing is, if Britain stood Catholic, It will ROFLstomp Protestants with such fanaticism.
 
But the thing is, if Britain stood Catholic, It will ROFLstomp Protestants with such fanaticism.

No more than the powers that did stay Catholic, and with considerably less strength to influence Europe than France, Spain, and Austria.
 
But the thing is, if Britain stood Catholic, It will ROFLstomp Protestants with such fanaticism.

Dubious. The English record on the Continent for most of the period from the death of Henry V to the Battle of Blenheim generally consisted of military incompetence, a poor showing, and at best getting paid off by whomever they were fighting in exchange for going home and letting the important nations fight.

They are certainly less significant a factor militarily than Spain, Austria or France. Nor does the fact that England (remember they aren't British yet, and Scotland is a whole 'nother barrel of fish) remains Catholic in this scenario mean that they will necessarily go "GRRR...MUST SMASH PROTESTANTISM"; France remained Catholic, but played a far more significant role in upholding the Protestant powers than England did during the 16th and 17th centuries. Which points to another issue: the balance of power is such that a strong France is naturally going to tend to support *Protestant states in Germany as a check on the Holy Roman Emperor.

That said, a lack of access to the New World will prevent Protestantism from expanding nearly as much as it did historically, but the position in Germany, Scandinavia and possibly the Netherlands or maybe even Scotland still seems safe.
 
Protestantism would survive with or without Protestant England, but definetly not so wrongly. The Dutch would likely be crushed though. Like in my TL"Gloria Papales-A History of A Catholic England" where Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon have a son.
 
Top