HISTORY OF THE HUGUENOTS

6/19/09 | ALPHA-8-25-02

[hellbender]

France was a mess even before the Revolution, because the intelligent, entrepreneurial, middle-class elements, who were predominantly Huguenots, were exterminated or driven out, where they contributed enormously to whatever country took them in. What was left was a corrupt Church, worthless hedonistic aristocrats, an absolute monarch and his toadies, and vengeful proletarians and peasants.

The situation was very different in predominantly Protestant England, where a series of lesser revolutions and civil wars produced an evolution toward parliamentary representative government.

[vladimir998]

Apparently you unintentionally post fiction, however.

[muawiyah]

It's difficult ~ one year you own Canada and the next year not. A brutal, brutal matter.

Talk about some reparations, I could use some!

[xzins]

Hugh and Series?

or

Huguenots?

Stormhands doesn’t sound French....:>)

[constitutiongirl]

Good point. It was the usurpation of culture, even going so far as to institute a 10-day week. (Resulting in one of my favorite sayings of all time... The beasts of the field taught the revolutionaries a lesson in practical theology). The Bolshies really admired this aspect of the FRev.

[hellbender]

The French Revolution was bad because so many of the people who could have produced peaceful evolution and increased prosperity were already gone! You ought to ask yourself why Catholic countries (and Orthodox ones like Russia) were so backward, then exploded into violence and chaos. It just might have something to do with the fact that their large monopolistic, corrupt, and flagrantly anti-Biblical church establishments were repulsive to many. If a wealthy established institution wallows in corruption, allies itself with abusive political elites, and massacres all dissidents, explosion (or massive cynicism like that seen in many Catholic cultures) is inevitable.

[mamelukesabre]

You are really a piece of work. So the church made them pay what they can afford. And that makes it better.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Regarding “empty suit” he was selected for his first position solely because HIS FAMILY simply needed someone in a position to control the flow of money from the bishopric into their pockets, and his older brother had turned down the job to join a religious order.”

Great, you can read Wikipedia. And what you just wrote is irrelevant. He is not known for his first position. He is known for his diplomatic mastery over much of European affairs.

“That’s a job an “empty suit” could handle. His promotion to bishop was of the same order.”

Again, irrelevant.

“His brilliance became known LATER ON.”

I never said otherwise. You, however, did. If he possessed brilliance in his position, then he was not an empty suit.

“Now, regarding missionaries, irrespective of where the Jesuits were headquartered, their access to French lands and concessions required approval by the French government - and if I recall correctly that came about at the conclusion of the Thirty Years War ~ which took papal powers in such matters and assigned them to the secular states.”

Again, irrelevant. Your claims were the following:

1) “...Richelieu was promoted most often because so many powerful figures around him thought of him as a useful idiot, an empty suit...”

2) “One article says he granted the Jesuits a monopoly on the fur trade ~ which suggests he either hated the Recollects, but hated the Jesuits more (getting them cooked on tribal campfires throughout the Ohio Country)...”

3) “...or he wanted to get them out of the country.”

4) “After Richilieu it was amazing that the Jesuits still existed.”

And apparently those claims are false.

“Richilieu appears to be the guy to credit with all the negotiations that led to the Treaty of Westphalia although he died right before the Congress.”

Wow, what an empty suit, huh? That was only one of the most important treaties in history. Gee, he was clearly a moron.

“Prior to that Treaty some of the more powerful nation states (e.g. France and Spain) regularly told Popes to take a hike and dictated from their own capitals where missionaries of which orders were allowed. England, of course, took an even more devious course, and the Swedes didn’t care.”

All irrelevant to what we’re discussing.

“BTW, all the top commanders and principals in the Thirty Years War were fairly close relatives ~ like a small town full of feuding clans.”

No. Von Tilly and Wallenstein were not close relatives, for instance. Were they related at all? I doubt it.

[muawiyah]

Everybody has to have a first job you know.

[Jim Noble]

I must say, I find the inside of the cathedral at Geneva quite depressing.

[muawiyah]

One of the many Jesuits eaten near my old hometown of Indianapolis was Father Brebeuf.

I believe he was made a saint some time back.

[muawiyah]

Graf von Tilly and Reichsgrafen von Waldstein, Herren von Wartenberg ~ it’s inescapable that they were relatives ~ need to check what the Mormons have on them. I’m betting they had at least one Great Grandmother in common.

[Texas Fossil]

Do you see any similarities?

First is the Huguenot Cross also called the La Rochelle Cross

Second is the Scottish Knights Templar Cross

Both Huguenots and Knights Templar had a presence in La Rochelle and were persecuted by the French King

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Rochelle#Huguenot_rebellions

The Knights Templar had a strong presence in La Rochelle since before the time of Eleanor of Aquitaine, who exempted them from duties and gave them mills in her 1139 Charter.[2] La Rochelle was for the Templars their largest base on the Atlantic Ocean,[3], and where they stationned their main fleet.[4] From La Rochelle, they were able to act as intermediaries in trade between England and the Mediterranean.[5] There is a legend that the Templars used the port of La Rochelle to flee with the fleet of 18 ships which had brought Jacques de Molay from Cyprus to La Rochelle. The fleet would have left ladden with knights and treasures just before the issuance of the arrest warrant against the Order in October 1307

--

Huguenot rebellionsUnder Henry IV the city enjoyed a certain freedom and prosperity until the 1620s, but the city entered in conflict with the central authority of the King Louis XIII with the Huguenot rebellion (1622).[9] A fleet from La Rochelle fought a royal fleet of 35 ships under the Charles de Guise in front of Saint-Martin-de-Ré, but was defeated on 27 October 1622, leading to the signature of the Peace of Montpellier.

Do you think there is a connection?

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“The French Revolution was bad because so many of the people who could have produced peaceful evolution and increased prosperity were already gone! You ought to ask yourself why Catholic countries (and Orthodox ones like Russia) were so backward, then exploded into violence and chaos.”

Why would I ask myself a question that makes no sense because the premise is faulty? Catholic countries were the great western powers in the 16th and 17th centuries. Spain? Conquered much of the world. Portugal too. France? The same. The Protestant country England did the same. Holland (with a more mixed population) did too. The fact that some of those countries then declined (and later rose again by the way) has nothing to do with the religion of their people.

“It just might have something to do with the fact that their large monopolistic, corrupt, and flagrantly anti-Biblical church establishments were repulsive to many.”

No. Muslim countries were superior to Christian ones throughout the Middle Ages and Ottoman Turkey easily outmatched all Protestant countries combined until the 18th or 19th century. Were the Muslims, or Turks specifically, Biblical? How about China in the 17th century?

“If a wealthy established institution wallows in corruption, allies itself with abusive political elites, and massacres all dissidents, explosion (or massive cynicism like that seen in many Catholic cultures) is inevitable.”

And yet it never happened. The Church protected the poor - as is seen by the results of the Protestant Revolution in England where the government had to enact laws to help exterminate the poor because they were too Protestant to aid them. Clearly, the fact that non-Catholics existed in Catholic countries means they were not massacred.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Everybody has to have a first job you know.”

Maybe. But a man is either brilliant or he isn’t. You can say a man is an empty suit and then in a later post say he was later brilliant and be taken seriously.

Consistency.

[muawiyah]

The French Revolution happened during a period of considerable social progress in France. Even the King favored it. Following the Revolution you have Napoleon and he led the French to conquer most of Europe, and to establish a common set of laws and standards, much of which persist to modern times.

BTW, by the time of the English invasion of Canada, Jews were allowed to be members of the White Coats and could advance quite high in rank. This was far and away more progressive than England at the time.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“One of the many Jesuits eaten near my old hometown of Indianapolis was Father Brebeuf.”

(sigh) St. Jean de Brébeuf was not eaten. His heart was. The Hurons were apparently hoping to attain his courage by doing so.

“I believe he was made a saint some time back.”

1930 or so.

[hellbender]

Conquest of the New World by Catholic powers like Spain was rapacious exploitation of the native people by warlords who were little better than pirates. That's why Latin America is incapable of political stability, free economies, and limited government, much like its European parent nations. As for Islam and Turkey, you seem to share Hussein 0bama's nitwit ideas. The Turks were central Asian nomads known for nothing but extreme cruelty and violence. Islam was a parasitic culture whose so-called achievements were actually due to the residual cultures of the dhimmis of the once-great cultures they defeated militarily (Byzantium, Persia, Egypt, India). Merely attaining power by military force, plunder, and enslavement is not admirable. Heck, the Soviet Union and Communist China would be great societies by your criteria.

What I am saying, and it is indisputable, is that free societies, capitalism, and limited government are unique outgrowths of Reformation culture, esp. that of Great Britain and its colonies.

[muawiyah]

Part, all of him ~ makes little difference. He was eaten (in part), but cooked (as a whole). The Hurons were not completely savage!

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Graf von Tilly and Reichsgrafen von Waldstein, Herren von Wartenberg ~ it’s inescapable that they were relatives ~ need to check what the Mormons have on them. I’m betting they had at least one Great Grandmother in common.”

I wouldn’t bet money on that. I could be wrong, but I doubt they’re related.