Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre

History.Com ^ | Aug 24 | Unknown

[HarleyD]

King Charles IX of France, under the sway of his mother, Catherine de Medici, orders the assassination of Huguenot Protestant leaders in Paris, setting off an orgy of killing that results in the massacre of tens of thousands of Huguenots all across France.

Two days earlier, Catherine had ordered the murder of Admiral Gaspard de Coligny, a Huguenot leader whom she felt was leading her son into war with Spain. However, Coligny was only wounded, and Charles promised to investigate the assassination in order to placate the angry Huguenots. Catherine then convinced the young king that the Huguenots were on the brink of rebellion, and he authorized the murder of their leaders by the Catholic authorities. Most of these Huguenots were in Paris at the time, celebrating the marriage of their leader, Henry of Navarre, to the king's sister, Margaret.

A list of those to be killed was drawn up, headed by Coligny, who was brutally beaten and thrown out of his bedroom window just before dawn on August 24. Once the killing started, mobs of Catholic Parisians, apparently overcome with bloodlust, began a general massacre of Huguenots. Charles issued a royal order on August 25 to halt the killing, but his pleas went unheeded as the massacres spread. Mass slaughters continued into October, reaching the provinces of Rouen, Lyon, Bourges, Bourdeaux, and Orleans. An estimated 3,000 French Protestants were killed in Paris, and as many as 70,000 in all of France. The massacre of Saint Bartholomew's Day marked the resumption of religious civil war in France.

[Cronos]

And finally one asks:

what persecution did they face once they left France?

As shown above (and one can check the facts for oneself), the Huguenots were the one who bit the hand that fed them, then launched the first attacks, started a civil war and then lost

They were like the Moslems in present day France -- slowly starting, making nice noises, but then attacking Christian churchs and finally starting a civil war.

They lost, tough luck --- the losers in the 1500s were not given much graces, yet they were allowed to stay with the same acts of tolerance AFTER losing politically. Yet they continued supporting political intrigues and there was a political massacre.

The Huguenots were on the losing side, so they got killed like the Catholics in England or in Scandanavia.

It was the 1500s, a pretty barbaric time

The mass killings of the Huguenots were done at the hands of rioters in a pogrom after it was learned that the Huguenots were conspiring with the English to stage a coup and facilitate an invasion. It is never healthy to conspire against a sitting king. After this, one branch became the persecutors in South Africa, another branch, many would have joined the KKK (I'm not implying all by any means, but many)

these guys slapped the King that was supporting them, and silently stood grew and then became a threat, first attacking Churches, committing acts of sacrilege (when their numbers grew to 5-10% like the Moslems) and then launching civil war.

The Huguenots were on the losing side, so they got killed like the Catholics in England or in Scandanavia.

It was the 1500s, a pretty barbaric time

The mass killings of the Huguenots were done at the hands of rioters in a pogrom after it was learned that the Huguenots were conspiring with the English to stage a coup and facilitate an invasion. It is never healthy to conspire against a sitting king.

[Rider on the Rain]

Perhaps we could have a co-celebration with the Easter Sunday Rebellion, potato famine of the 1840's.

Well yeah, if you want to compare mass murder to jay walking. Lighten up. I love Catholics. We hard working God Fearing Americans, protestant, Catholic, and Jewish, must together oppose the marxist elitists.

[SunkenCiv]

:’) Thanks Tainan.

[bronx2]

Millions died in the potato famine of the 1840's and millions more died thanks to the exercise of Christian British paternalism throughout the past few centuries.. So yes , the St Bartholomew's massacre was merely a gentle tap relative to the atrocities perpetrated by the Brits against the Church.

[Cronos]

We hard working God Fearing Americans, protestant, Catholic, and Jewish, must together oppose the marxist elitists.

I fully agree with you. Posting this one incident from 400 years ago when there were social and political causes mixed in (as much as religious) is one of the left's ways of attempting to split us up.

That two political factions attacked each other 400+ years ago has no relevance to us today.

did you notice that the media has tried hard to ignore the World Youth Day in Spain where nearly 2 million young Christians came to show their enthusiasm for Christ? This goes against the left's agenda that "God is dead" and they wanted to keep it quiet. Of course there were the usual gay supporters protesting that the pope said marriage is between one man and one woman that cannot be broken, and the media tried to light on that, but it only came out showing the gays as the attackers.

ROTR is correct -- we should all together remember our real enemies today.

[Cincinna]

Thanks for the Ping!
The Huguenots were the mainstay of the functioning of the State in France- the managers, accountants, and planners ( it’s that Protestant work ethic thing) many were highly trained trained gold and silversmiths, and other artisans. The massacre and the flight of the Huguenots are believed by many to be one of the underlying causes of the French Revolution.
Many Huguenots escaped and fled to the New World and to Russia, then to America. Carl Fabergé and Paul Revere come to mind.

[Cincinna]

Comparing the Huguenots to Muslems is despicable.

[Cronos]

Why? The facts are that the tactics used by both these groups in France were/are the same

In the 1500s, they were nicey,nice, quietly growing. In france, under Francis I, France was tolerant of all religious views -- but the H's got into the mood to bite the hand and this is illustrated in "the affair of the placards" in 1534 which directly challenged the king's authority and even security

These went on to attack the then tolerant majority in France -- again, just like the Moslems do now

in 1560, the H's were the ones who started the first destruction of ancient Churches -- note the first salvo was started by the Huguenots

Now, 40 years after the first confrontation by the Huguenots the St. Bart's massacre occurs -- 40 years after the country had been infiltrated by these people and who 25 years after the affair of the placards had started attacking Churches

these Huguenots then played the political game supporting the old enemy -- the English against France

They acted then just as the Moslems in France are acting now.

[Cronos]

Yes, we generally got the better Huguenots to America, however the ones who went to South Africa perpetuated apartheid and the ones who went to Prussia reinforced the Prussian militaristic regime which went on to perpetuate such atrocities as the Kulturkampf and the forcible re-organization of Germania into a Prussian influenced Germany that went on a straight Prussian trajectory up until 1945...

[Cronos]

Of course note that in the first place the comparison of one religious group infiltrating France and ultimately attacking the dominant religious group's buildings and challenging the politics is exactly the same tactic whether H or M

Secondly, the various actions of those H's have no influence on the descendents of these folks -- just as no doubt most of us have the blood of various conquerors, defeated, tyrants, saints, sinners etc.

Thirdly, the actions of the H descendants in Prussia have no relation to the morality of descendants in America today -- these were 5th/6th or more distant cousins 4 - 5 times removed.

[wmfights]

In before the *Yeah but the Protestants.......*

Lol

In after the "Yeah but the Protestants....."

[metmom]

Why am I not surprised?

Predictable as the sunrise.

[Cincinna]

The Huguenots didn’t “infiltrate” France. They were French, Français de souche who were enlightened by the Reformation. Read a good history of the Reformation, then come back, minus your anti-Protestant bias and ignorance.

[Dutchboy88]

"...posted placards all over Paris..."

"...polemic was an attack"

"...attacked Catholic Churchs and destroyed properties..."

That anyone in the Roman Catholic community could possibly equate placards, arguing, and even destroying property with the slaughter of humans is remarkable. Although it is almost assuredly in doubt, even if what you claimed were completely true, that you would conclude the Huguenots "brought it on themselves" discloses much about Rome's deep need for props and its absence of understanding faith, alone. No wonder the Reformation got traction.

Real reform, the heart of the Huguenot message, meant that reliance upon human anything, is a return to Law, a slavery promoted by Rome (read the Catholic historian excerpt), but despised by the Apostle Paul (read Galatians, Romans, Acts). Rome clung to self-reliance, in spite of claims they acknowledge Augustine's victory over Pelagius and have since morphed that into a reliance upon Rome.

The trust which the Holy Spirit creates in the soul of an elect believer recognizes grace as an unmerited favor which removes the need for anything...except Jesus. Rome, on the other hand, kills for statues, bones, bricks and placards. Astonishing that they would admit it.

[Cronos]

Of course they infiltrated France with their attitude to destroy Churches. Their attitude was like the Moslems of today. First step, they were nicey nice

Second step they bite the hand of the government that was tolerant

Third step they destroyed Churches

Fourth step, they collaborated with the enemy of the state (a competing power)

They lost and got evicted -- that's what happens to those who are traitors to the nation.

[Cronos]

And I've read both sides and relatively unbiased views of the Reformatting

However, that is besides the point, this was a historical article, not a religious one so please do not make it one

Historically speaking the Huguenots DID slap the hand of the government that had tolerated it, just as the Moslems do in France today

Historically speaking they did the attack the majority first and destroy Churches -- the first salvo so to speak

Historically speaking they did collaborate with the enemies of the nation and foment civil war

Do read up on the history of this time in France and the civil war that this caused. The Huguenots were one side of the civil war -- even worse, they collaborated with the ancienne enemy (England). They were hence traitors to the nation as well as fomenters of civil war.

They lost and got massacred, that's what happened in all times right up to the present.

This was a socio-political conflict with a religious dimension and this article specifically talks about the historical aspect (it IS from the History channel), so do look at this aspect.

[Cincinna]

FYI
In France today, Protestants are among the most prosperous, successful, and politically powerful people in France. It’s that darned Protestant work ethic thing.

The overwhelming majority of Americans are Protestants.
Almost all Evangelicals are Calvinists.

There are FReepers here who are Protestant, Jewish, and Catholic , Orthodox, Mormon etc. This trashing of different denominations and beliefs and comparing Christians to Islam is misplaced and doesn’t belong here.

[Alex Murphy]

That anyone in the Roman Catholic community could possibly equate placards, arguing, and even destroying property with the slaughter of humans is remarkable. Although it is almost assuredly in doubt, even if what you claimed were completely true, that you would conclude the Huguenots "brought it on themselves" discloses much about Rome's deep need for props and its absence of understanding faith, alone....[Rome] kills for statues, bones, bricks, and placards. Astonishing that they would admit it.

Hey, we have (some) Catholics right here on FR who have called for a new Inquisition, and called for the destruction of our Constitutional Republic so as to replace it with a Catholic Monarchy. And they do so while claiming to be "conservatives" and that Protestants are the real "liberals".

IMO there's nothing at all astonishing about it. It's what they do and believe.

[Cronos]

Actually, the work ethic thing is also a myth. Let me explain why:

1. The places considered as the sources of this industriousness were the Netherlands primarily and secondarily parts of England. YET, the Netherlands region (present day Netherlands + Belgium) were industrious right from the 11th century - BRugges etc. were centres of industry as was Genoa and Pisa and Venice.

2. Remember also that the Netherlands was also very Catholic (modern day Belgium split away in 1830)

3. The places in which the industrial revolution really took off in the late 1700s to the 1800s was in the triangle of London-Paris-Amsterdam. This was Anglican, Catholic, Calvinist in population

   so, hence it was not religious but more regional

4. Next, the capitalist institutions that kicked off this work ethic, like banking etc. were started and in many cases perfected BEFORE the reformation -- in places like the Italian city states

5. Delacroix points out that Amsterdam's wealth was centered on Catholic families; the economically advanced German Rhineland is more Catholic than non-Catholic; all-Catholic Belgium was the second country to industrialize, ahead of a good half-dozen non-Catholic entities.'"

6. The same author also compares the level of economic development across various Anglican, Calvinist, Lutheran, Catholic countries and finds no evidence that one group outperforms another

   The reason for this myth in America is that many see countries as monolithically one religion, which is not correct:

   • Germany is 40% or more Catholic and the major industrial zones are in the southern, Catholic areas -- like Bavaria (BMW, Adidas, Puma) or Swabia or in the Rhineland.
   • Belgium as we see above is mainly Catholic, and has the same or better growth levels than non-Catholic countries
   • Switzerland is 30% Catholic

7. The myth starts with the Puritans who being primarily city folk didn't choose good lands to farm in in the US, and also brought in old world crops that required more work yet brought in less bounty. They then HAD to work hard to survive. The Puritans also then started up the entire Prosperity Gospel that doing well must be a sign of God’s favor, perhaps even a sign that the successful person had received salvation through God’s grace!

8. Then of course in the late 1800s, Irish and Italian immigrants came who were poorer and the myth really got under way!

you can see more details in post 523, the second map

[Cronos]

common historical mis-statement by some posters is whether scientific breakthrough was purely or even lead by "Protestant nations"
Let's set the historical background first -- Europe in 1500. Population estimates taken from Internet Medieval Source book

Country	Population (millions)	Position as a nation-state
British Isles	3	Until the end of the 100 years wars, it seemed that England and France would merge under one king.  When the English lost and were thrown out of Western France, that led to the consolidation of both England and France as nation-states with language unity. However, Scotland still was independent and the Welsh chaffed under English rule. Ireland is reduced to warring clans.
France & low countries	12	See above.  France emerges as the strongest nation-state, but is really an empire with the northern, “French-speaking” population around Paris ruling over the southern l’Oil areas.  The French had recently destroyed and conquered the Duchy of Burgundy   The low countries (Belgium, Netherlands) are part of Spain and remain so until 1600.  These were once the capitals of the Holy Roman Empire (Bruges was once a center of trade) and hence have a larger population, more trade and commerce.   Belgium is part of Holland until 1830 even though it is completely Catholic.  In 1830 it fights and gets independence.
Germany & Scandanavia	7.3	No sense of nation-state until Napoleon and even then as nation-states like Hesse, Bavaria, etc. not as Germany (that only happens post WWI and more especially post WWII when Germans from Eastern Europe who have lived in EE for centuries are thrown out to Germany) Scandanavia has a stronger sense of nation-states, but the Swedes are in union with the Geats (Goths) and the Norwegians and Danes are in a union.   The strongest nation-state is Denmark.  Sweden is close but will not develop it until the 1600s.   Norway is still tribal as is Iceland and Finland Switzerland is still part of the Holy Roman Empire and has no sense of a nation-state but is a loose confederation that have nothing in common except that they band together against common enemies.  This will remain the state of Switzerland until Napoleon conquers Switzerland and creates the Helvetic Confederation (and then adds it to France!).  Post Napoleon, there is consolidation, but Switzerland still has a large civil war and only gets some semblance of a nation state in the late 1800s
Italy	7.3	No sense of nation-state, but strong city-states.  This is the most advanced “nation” in Western Europe, with an advanced financial system, manufacturing, strong in agriculture etc.  Only it does not have a central government, which puts it in a bad position compared to France and Spain who interfere in the city-states. Italy is not united until Garibaldi in the late 1800s.
Spain/Portugal	7	Strong nation-states formed in opposition to the Moors.  Not very advanced economically as this is still very agricultural.  However, it is tied to the economically stronger Arab world and with the discovery of gold in the Americas, it will be the most powerful state for the 1500s -1680s until the rise of Louis XIV France
Greece/Balkans	4.5	Under Ottoman rule, strong sense of nation-state, but no self-rule.   Highly advanced economies in Greece and Anatolia, arguably most advanced in all of Europe.   Romania, Albania, Serbia, Macedonia, Montenegro and Bulgaria arespan> devastated by the Ottomans with many fleeing to the mountains.  Agriculture, culture etc. severely decline. They are hit on two sides – by the Turks militarily and, because the Turks have a “millet” system where people of one religion are grouped together and the millet for all of these is Orthodoxy, the Bulgarians, Romanians etc. are kept under Greek Phanariotes.  Hence their culture declines while Greek culture thrives.
Russia	6	Still expanding south and east, conquering the Emirates of Kazan etc. This is still a barbaric state and remains so until Peter the Great.  It has a sense of purpose, but it’s purpose is Christianity as they believe they are the last Christian state and have a holy duty to push back the Moslems.  Economic and scientific development is poor as the focus is on war and agriculture – life is too hard and land too vast to develop like Western Europe.
Poland/Lithuania	2	Consolidating nation-state, however, more based on a confederacy as there are 4 nations here: Poles, Lithuanians, Ruthenians (Ukrainians, Belarusians) and Jews.  This mixed with 4 different religions (Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Judaism and Islam (Lipka Tartars)) means a very tolerant state – tolerance levels of these are not reached by Western Europe until the late Victorian era.
Hungary	1.5	Strong nation state of the Magyars in Magyaristan (we English speakers give them an exonym of Hungary while they call themselves Magyar).  However, the Magyars (descendents of Finno-Ugaric warriors) are mostly ruling class and warriors, they import Saxons as merchants.  The native Romanians, Slovaks, etc are kept as serfs.  The state is one of war
Bohemia	1	Strong nation-state but at war with the Holy Roman Empire and Poland has given it a sense of insecurity.  It will eventually be absorbed by Austria-hungary.

The net effect is that before the reformation you essentially have only 5 viable "nation"-states. In orders of strenght of national identity:

1. England
2. Denmark
3. France
4. Spain
5. Portugal

The financial positions of these countries do NOT change as part of the reformation. They remain more or less the same until the mid-1700s. In fact, the economic position of Germany declines due to the 30 years war and even worse, the Peace of Westphalia

1683, Battle of Vienna and 1701-1714 there is the War of Spanish succession -- THAT changes everything in Europe.. At the end of this, Spain and Portugal are in decline, France is the most powerful state and will remain so until 1812. the Ottoman Turks are in precipituous decline, Russia is expanding south and east rapidly and modernizing fast from an Asian monarchy to a more European-style feudal state. Germany gets consolidated into 4 majory states: Austria, Bavaria, Brandenburg-Prussia and Hesse-Hanover. The Swedes are now extremely powerful and in 50 years invade Poland and Russia (the Deluge) -- this destroys the commonwealth and even though it reforms it is never the same under the Swedish Vasa kings of Poland nor the Saxon kings of Poland. THe commonwealth is irrevocably headed for 1791 when Poland is carved up by Prussia, Russia and Austria.

======================================================================================================================================================

Next, urbanization in Europe in 1800

As you can see, the heaviest urbanization has been in the triangle formed by London, Paris and Amsterdam

======================================================================================================================================================

Scientific innovation --> I couldn't find an online map for this, but there are books available and there should be something online. however, I need to figure out the right google-words!

Anyway, scientific innovations leading the industrial revolution are exclusively found in these 2 countries:

England (right from the north to the south)
1. France (mostly in the north)

England is Anglican, France is Catholic. Germany is Lutheran and Catholic (60-40) and the Dutch republic is reformed. The latter two have their scientific developments but in sheer quantity they lag behind England and France. Scandanavia is Lutheran and has fewer scientific developments and mostly in Sweden or Denmark i.e. in the populated states). Eastern Europe and southern Europe are in the throes of war or recovering from their declines as powerful entites, so the developments are least over here.

So, the scientific developments are not exclusively any type of Protestant -- if anything, the industrial revolution is led by High-Church Anglican Britain and Catholic France.

======================================================================================================================================================
But does religion have a role to play in this?
======================================================================================================================================================

I would argue yes in the case of Anglicanism -- it is far less rigid in it's structure than either the CAtholic countries OR the Lutheran/Reformed state countries. While all the countries had state religions, Anglicanism was the most "flexible" -- you had near Catholics in the High-Church Anglicans and reformed in the "Low Church Anglicans", so religion did play a factor because Anglicanism was flexible compared to Catholicism, Calvinism or Lutheranism -- but what were the other factors?

The other factors are:

• Population -- by the late 1700s, France is the most populous country in all of Europe and the richest and it has the second strongest sense of "self"
• England is heavily populated -- by the late 1700s it has to import foodgrains as it can no longer feed itself. It is rich and getting richer due to it's gains in north america and India (1756 Battle of Plassey where it threw out the French to get exclusive trading rights -- note, the british Indian Empire had still not formed, but the Brits controlled Indian trade). England has a STRONG sense of who is it, a very strong 'nation-state' identity that other states envy and has built up a mythology about itself which is important in building a sense of self
• Spain, Portugal, Italy etc. have stable, lower populations that resemble the populations of 1500, so no growth due to war etc. the Netherlands had a growing population but then they lost the Anglo-Dutch wars (how we got the disparaging terms in English like "go Dutch" etc) and lost a lost of national self-confidence

Which brings me to the second fact -- war and peace. England and France mostly fight on the periphery or on overseas territories. They are not fighting like Spain or Eastern Europe or Germany on their homelands. This means that the home populations have the peace to focus on science and economy.

Finally, the last factor -- success breeds success. By the Victorian era, the momentum of scientific discovery in England and France meant that smart people were encouraged to come to these countries as they knew they'd get opportunities. It's the same reason why silicon valley is the centre of IT research -- as we reach a critical mass of smart folks, this mass expands itself, absorbing smart people from elsewhere --> on a side note, check how many American nobel laureates were born outside the US and see how the key factor affecting our scientific growth is that we no longer have the super-critical mass of smart folks we once had