How the trickster opened the New Age. Where was Ukraine 400 years ago?

Many interpret our current upheavals as a prologue to the next technological/industrial revolution. And they prophesy dramatic irreversible changes in the lives of the current generations. If so, the main intrigue lies in who exactly will be able to make a confident dash. Because there is an idea that the next civilizational round will never start where it happened the previous times.

Here a natural question arises: how does the emergence of new candidates for confident leadership generally occur? And why, the hell, last time it was England, didn't it portend anything - especially?? Once you start to understand, you will be surprised at the recognizability of the scenarios of some events.

Fire and blood: how the New Age was born

How the trickster opened the New Age. Where was Ukraine 400 years ago?

Let's start with the fact that the English Reformation, unlike similar processes in other countries, was a reformation "from above". And no matter how much someone would like to imagine this story as a willful effort of an enlightened monarch, we know that this decision arose from a cocktail of a love affair, political intrigues and career ambitions.

In 1509, at the age of 17, Henry VIII ascended the English throne. And immediately concluded a dynastic marriage with Catherine of Aragon, the widow of his brother Arthur. Ekaterina, a native Spaniard and a devout Catholic, was not only the royal wife, but, of course, a lobbyist for the interests of Spain. She gently but firmly promoted the political interests of her father, Ferdinand of Aragon. Under her influence, England adhered to a reliable pro-Spanish course in foreign policy, and this situation could last quite a long time. If it weren't for one "but".

All male children born to Ekaterina and Henry died in infancy. Henry wanted to get an heir to continue the Tudor dynasty. Of course, the idea of ​​getting rid of a "low-quality" wife must have arisen. Moreover, Henry himself by this time was attracted to the beautiful lady-in-waiting, the Protestant Anna Boleyn. That fueled his determination even more.

In 1527 Henry turned to the Pope Clement VII with a request to cancel the defect. And he deftly justified this by the fact that marrying his brother's widow contradicted biblical teaching. Therefore, God refused to bless the offspring from the "darkened" union. Not that Pope Clement was a coward, but he courageously feared the wrath of the nephew of Catherine of Aragon, the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, Charles V. His troops sacked Rome in the same year and even held the pope captive. Therefore, the pontiff refused to satisfy the royal request, motivating the refusal by the fact that permission for the marriage was given by the previous pope, Julius II, and who is asking such a person to cast doubt on the predecessor's decision, practically according to the definition of the saint.

Shtosh, - said Henry, - we will go the other way.

In 1529, he convened the Parliament on the issue of marriage annulment. The elites perceived this conversion as a gift of fate. Among the English nobility, many wanted reforms, shared the ideas of Martin Luther, wanted to get rid of the influence of the Catholic Church on secular power, and therefore - from the influence of Rome and, to a lesser extent, the politics of third countries. Three Thomases played a decisive role in this story.

This is Thomas Cromwell, a lawyer and Protestant, who understood how Parliament could be used to strengthen the royal power and at the same time establish Protestantism in England.

This is Thomas More - Henry's chancellor, lawyer, philosopher, idealist, author of the famous "Utopia".

And Thomas Cranmer, Protestant, leader of the English Reformation, future Archbishop of Canterbury.

In 1529, extremely unpopular among the people, but a powerful political intriguer and adviser to the king, Cardinal Thomas Walsy was accused of encroaching on the king's power and removed from the post of chancellor. The place of the king's adviser was taken by Cromwell, who offered to ignore the pope's opinion. However, the assembly of clergy and lawyers reported that the Parliament could not force the Archbishop of Canterbury to act against the will of the Pope.

Yes, - said Henry - this is an encroachment on the king's power by the entire dogmatic English clergy. It is impossible to recognize the power of the pope above the power of the crown. Pogrom, yes pogrom.

The three Thomases formed the ideological core of the Parliament of the Reformation, which adopted a number of parliamentary acts, the general content of which was the creation of England independent from Rome national church. The statutes adopted by the Parliament of the Reformation in 1529–1536 consistently deprived Rome of all legal privileges. The Pope could not even defeat England with a curse, because it was prescribed that no attention should be paid to his interdicts and excommunications. The apogee of the activities of the Parliament of the Reformation was the Act of Supremacy, which declared the king the head of the Anglican Church, as it came to be called by that time. Any connection of the clergy with Rome was recognized as treason with the aim of harming the interests of the crown.

In 1532, Thomas Cranmer, a clear supporter of Protestantism, became the bishop of Canterbury. With his support, the next stage of the defeat of Catholic influence, known as Tudor secularization, took place. 376 Catholic monasteries were liquidated and dispersed. Henry partially kept their lands for himself, and partially gave them away or sold them to the loyal "new nobility". Thus, he suppressed the foci of potential Catholic propaganda and subliminal influence on the flock.

Doesn't this remind you of anything?

As a result, the marriage with Catherine of Aragon was annulled, Henry married Anne Boleyn, Anne was crowned as queen consort. Pope Clement, of course, excommunicated the king from the church, which, of course, was ignored.

Yes, the continuation of this story was tragic for many characters of the plot. Thomas More was executed when he refused to recognize the complete break with Rome and the supremacy of the king. Anna Boleyn, like her predecessor, could not give birth to an heir, was unjustly accused and beheaded. Thomas Cranmer was burned at the stake in the course of the counter-reformation, which was undertaken by Maria Tudor, the Catholic daughter of Catherine of Aragon, who ascended the throne. She received the nickname Bloody Mary due to the persecution and executions of Anglican priests.

However, before the execution, Cranmer spoke prophetic words to his friend in misfortune Nicholas Ridla: Have faith, Mr. Ridley, today we light a fire that will illuminate the whole world.

A bonfire that illuminated the whole world

How the trickster opened the New Age. Where was Ukraine 400 years ago?

And he was absolutely right. Ultimately, getting rid of Catholic influence not only strengthened the crown and the position of the adherents of Protestantism. The religious revolution from above opened a window of opportunity for the next, secular, scientific revolution. In conditions when the Catholic Church could not reach out to thinking people with its inquisitorial hands, they finally got the right to freely develop their theories.

It is no coincidence that this happened during the reign of Elizabeth I, daughter of Henry and Anne Boleyn. Having received the throne in 1558, she was forced to continue the Reformation started by her father. That's the only way her power looked legitimate in the eyes of the nobility and society. But at the same time, she pursued a moderate religious policy, according to which Catholics were not forbidden to celebrate mass. Childhood and youth, spent in the atmosphere of religious wars, convinced her of the evil of the idea of ​​extinguishing fires with kerosene. Religious tolerance was scaled to other spheres as well.

It seemed that after the expulsion of Rome from England, an action unthinkable for those times, the English had the moral right to question any authorities and dogmas. The works of Aristotle and Galen were criticized. Francis Bacon criticized the scholastic approach to scientific knowledge. And he became the founder of empiricism and English materialism, which presupposed a proof-based, scientific approach. From his work "New Organon" grew a whole huge tree of science, up to the modern one.

Elizaveta, who received an education with the best teachers in Cambridge, became a queen and patronized science and the arts.

The scientific revolution that began in England spread to mainland Europe and launched the Enlightenment. In the 16th–18th centuries, the religious worldview was replaced by a scientific one based on rationalism and free thinking. The intellectuals of that time believed that knowledge cannot belong to a narrow stratum of the elect. On the contrary, they strove to scale knowledge and popularize it. Famous encyclopedias by Diderot, Chambers and Zedler are published in European countries.

The development of science and the establishment of the Protestant ethic (which encouraged entrepreneurship) started the industrial revolution. Guess in which country it started? Yes, in England even under Elizabeth. In just one hundred years, the country turned from a backward island backwater into a leading trade and industrial power in Europe.

With the support of the government, large factories were developed for the production of artillery, gunpowder, glass, paper, iron sulfate, alum and other important goods. Coal mining and other mining industries grew rapidly. The statute prohibiting the export of wool and raw cloth from England stimulated the rapid growth of the textile industry, the export of cloth tripled in the 1561th century and became the main point of English foreign trade. In 1566, the exchange rate of the pound sterling was stabilized, and in 1568-XNUMX, the Royal Exchange, similar to the Dutch one, was created.

The number of merchant ships with a displacement of more than 100 tons in the period 1588-1629 increased tenfold, from 10 to 35. English warships were more maneuverable than Spanish ones, and their guns had a longer range.

William Garrison's "Description of England" (1577) notes the outward growth of the nation's well-being, expressed, firstly, in the "huge number of chimneys erected in recent years", secondly, in the "replacement of dishes, wooden plates by pewter ones, and also wooden spoons with silver or tin ones", and thirdly, because logs and clay were replaced by stone and plaster in construction.

Already in the 17th century, England began to overtake the world leader — Holland — in terms of growth rates of capitalist manufactures, world trade, and colonial economy. By the middle of the 18th century, the country became a leading capitalist country. In terms of the level of economic development, it surpassed the rest of the European countries, closely approaching the new stage of social and economic development — large-scale machine production.

War with Spain and "Catholic peace"

How the trickster opened the New Age. Where was Ukraine 400 years ago?

Of course, this path was not paved with roses. Spain was not going to put up with the sudden Protestant emancipation of the island state. A purely Catholic territory, you understand... Moreover, England's successes eloquently testified to the advantages of Protestantism against the background of getting rid of Catholic influence. And this could already "teach the rest of the Europeans the wrong thing" and put the importance of the Catholic Church and the elites associated with it into question in principle. Representatives of the then "Catholic world" passionately dreamed of getting rid of the "Protestant infection" and returning all of Europe to the good old days. Since 1567, Spain could not cope with the Protestant rebels in the Netherlands. And the Catholic League of France signed a treaty with Spain in 1685, the purpose of which was the destruction of French Protestants. From this moment on, war was inevitable, since England could not allow France to fall under the influence of the Habsburgs. Elizabeth sent a XNUMX-strong detachment of troops, including XNUMX cavalrymen, to help the Dutch rebels. And Spain began to prepare a powerful fleet for landing on the British coast and joining England to the Spanish monarchy.

The fleet was pathetically called the Invincible Armada (tell me why the Russians named their supertank Armatoi?)). The ships were supposed to land the army on the islands of Britain Viceroy of the Spanish Netherlands Alexandra Farnese. In order to prepare a base on the coast of the Netherlands, the Farnese troops seized the port Slice. While the Spaniards were rubbing their hands, anticipating the imminent fall of England, the squadron of English Admiral Francis Drake attacked Cadiz, the base of the Invincible Armada, and destroyed about a hundred ships. The invasion of England had to be postponed.

But preparations for war continued. Small flat-bottomed vessels were built in Flanders. They planned to carry out the transfer of troops to the ships of the "Invincible Armada". Troops were transferred from Spain, Italy, Germany and Burgundy. Volunteers flocked from all over the "Catholic world" to take part in the war against Britain.

By the way, the king of Spain at that time was Philip II, the husband of Mary Tudor, Bloody Mary, who did not manage to carry out the counter-reformation. Philip was in a great hurry to conquer England and did not pay attention to some inconsistencies pointed out to him by military advisers.

Further events of the Anglo-Spanish war resembled the contemporary confrontation between Ukraine and Russia. In total, Spain had 75 military and 57 transport ships. On board were 8000 sailors, 2000 rowers-slaves, 19000 soldiers, 1000 officers, 300 priests and 85 doctors. England had 197 smaller ships with a total crew of 15000. The Spaniards relied on boarding combat, as they had a large advantage in personnel. And the British - for superiority in artillery and long-range combat.

The English sailors were better prepared, their lighter maneuverable ships suddenly attacked the Spanish ships and inflicted tangible damage on the Invincible Armada. The British implemented the strategy of "death by a thousand cuts" and left the battle only when the ammunition ran out. Francis Drake's pirate background came in very handy for the English navy. As a result, the brilliant ice blitz, conceived by the Spaniards, turned into a protracted war of attrition, which partially moved to the shores of America.

With variable success for both sides, the war lasted from 1585 to 1604. In 1603, Elizabeth I died, and the English throne was occupied by the Scottish king James Stuart (James VI of Scotland and James I of England), who had been proclaimed by her as the heir in exchange for the unification of the kingdoms. In 1604, he signed the Peace of London with the Spaniards. According to it, Spain recognized the legitimacy of the Protestant monarchy in England and undertook not to repeat any more demands for the establishment of Catholicism in the country. And England was cutting off aid to the Netherlands and opening the English Channel to Spanish ships.

Revolution and the decline of feudalism

How the trickster opened the New Age. Where was Ukraine 400 years ago?

In the future, very instructive events for our realities take place in England, which are worth considering in more detail. Especially in light of the similarity of the situations found above.

The war with Spain, like any other, contributed to the formation of absolutism. Elites rallied around the queen, as it usually happens in the case of an external threat, and recognized the need for extraordinary powers of the crown.

However, after the conclusion of peace in England, to speak in a clichéd language, internal contradictions intensified. The finances of the state after the grueling war were in a deplorable state. Yakov did not come up with anything better than to arbitrarily significantly raise taxes. But he did not take into account the fact that by the 17th century the Parliament had turned from "pocket" support to the monarch into an institution representing the interests of the new elites. During the reign of Elizabeth, the feudal lords of the "old fashion" were significantly eroded by capitalist-type landowners. The latter, due to better resource security, slowly took over local self-government and began to be elected to the Parliament as representatives of their territories.

The king and bishops were the largest landowners of the classical feudal sense and considered the subjects exclusively as a basis for taxation (that is, "plucked them like geese"). As you know, all this resulted in the confrontation between the king and the Parliament. Trying to concentrate all the levers of control in his hands, Yakov dissolved the parliament several times, but each new convocation was invariably hostile to his policy. This "pull-push" continued until the king's death and was inherited by his successor, Charles I.

Karl not only continued Jacob's thoughtless tax policy, but also decided to create a standing army subordinate to him personally. In 1628, the parliament adopted "Petition for Right", which cut off these displacements. The king formally agreed to the petition, but then suddenly dissolved Parliament.

During the further conditionally independent rule of Charles (who wanted to live like "real" monarchs in Spain and France), the royal authorities interfered in the activities of the courts, increased feudal payments even more and restored the so-called shipping tax. For the society, this was the last straw and after the refusal of John Hampden in 1637, to pay "ship money", the whole of England began to refuse to pay taxes en masse.

By 1640, an economic crisis broke out in the country, aggravated by the uprising of the feudal nobility in Scotland, outraged by the restriction of its political and religious freedoms. Karl was forced to give in to the Scots and start paying compensation for military expenses. That made the problem of tax collection even worse. To resolve which he convened the Parliament again and dissolved it three weeks later without finding a compromise (Short Parliament).

In November of the same year, the Parliament was convened again (later it was called the Long Parliament). The king needed money from him to suppress the Scottish Calvinist rebellion. Parliament responded with a long list of abuses by the government.

The "Long Parliament" put forward the main demands:

• the breakdown of the feudal bureaucratic machine,
• preventing the creation of a standing army subordinate to the king,
• cancellation of financial measures of the crown, which caused a general economic disorder,
• control of the parliament over the church

The crisis was aggravated by the rebellion in Ireland in 1641. Parliament was determined to pacify this first British colony, but the bourgeoisie flatly refused to entrust the army to Charles. Enraged Karl tried to arrest the key "conspirators", but they managed to escape. The situation escalated, and now Karl fled the capital to York, where, anticipating the inevitability of civil war, he began to gather his own army. The conservative part of the nobility (future royalists), fearing the possible confiscation of the estate, sided with the king. He was also supported by the big bourgeoisie, who did not want popular riots and the costs associated with them.

On June 2, 1642, the parliament sent the king "Nineteen offered", to relieve political tension. Each of the proposals contained significant restrictions on the power of the crown. Of course, the king rejected these demands, considering them unreasonable.

Further events were very reminiscent of our Maidan of the 13th year. In August 1642, a well-equipped royalist army marched on London. The king did not take into account one factor: his stupid domestic policy, for which he was personally responsible, destroyed not only the bourgeoisie. But the common people, who got used to a good life under Elizabeth and got tired, will suffer from man-made economic crises. The news of the royalists' offensive launched a spontaneous grassroots self-organization. The three major ports — Hull, Plymouth and Gloucester — desperately resisted, using any available means. Armed mainly with enthusiasm, the citizens of London pushed back the trained royal army in the village of Ternem-Green, stopped the enemy on the approaches to the capital.

Their "Maidan commanders" appeared, giving organization to spontaneous resistance. For example, the famous Oliver Cromwell, who was not a soldier, but managed to invent a victorious battle tactic.

As a result, the fiercely resisting army of the Parliament won a victory in battle at Nesba в Northamptonshire 14 June 1645 years, took the most experienced enemies captive and captured the weapons and equipment of the royal army. Karl admitted defeat and, out of hopelessness, surrendered himself as a prisoner in 1646, having lost hope for the help of his native Scotland.

I will not unreasonably stretch this long story, but I will tell you a teaser: the following events are strikingly reminiscent of our post-Maidan period. Up to the point of trying to suppress the revolutionary potential, he sent the Army of the New Model to suppress the Irish uprising. And Karl, this English Yanukovych, later started another civil war, was defeated and executed.

The monarchy was declared "superfluous, burdensome and dangerous for the freedom, security and public interests of the people" and abolished. The House of Lords, also recognized as "useless and dangerous", was also abolished. May 19, 1649 a republic was proclaimed.

Yes, after 11 years, the monarchy was restored (on extremely limited conditions, and subsequently finished off by the coup of 1688), but the English Revolution put an end to feudalism and gave the green light for the free development of capitalism.

Such side effects ultimately arose from the simple human desire of Henry VIII to marry Anne Boleyn.

Instead of an epilogue

I apologize for such a long excursion into the history of England, I hope it was not boring at least because of the recognizability of some events.

Researchers have been breaking spears for many years, trying to understand why the industrial revolution happened in England, and not in any other European country?

Some point to protectionism.

Others — for the formation of institutions that protect private property.

The third — for access to finance and low loan interest.

Someone mentions the development of science, someone mentions the impossibility of using slave labor and the forced establishment of other, essentially, labor relations. I think - all together.

Elizaveta, with her wise and balanced rule, not only contributed to achievements, she managed to create and maintain an environment where such achievements became possible. Moreover, this environment was formed relatively evolutionarily and for a long time. The process rolled on the small rollers of decisions made in response to emerging concrete problems, and not from ideological/utopian considerations of cabinet dreamers. This made it possible to dampen social inertia and make the transition of society to the foundation of the new system smooth.

Mainland Europe spent a critical amount of time on religious showdowns, the results of which, as is clear from today's day, did not have decisive significance. And subsequently, she was forced to generate the Modern philosophy, a kind of ideological crutch, which could be used to drive controlled societies in pursuit of an insolent trickster. But about that next time.

Exclusive

Kateryna Gladkevich
William D. Donovan Foundation for International Peace