Does anyone else, when reading about the English Civil War, get the ISIS vibe from the Roundhead iconoclasm...

You don't think I have any substantial evidence to back up the assertion that they're radical iconoclasts?

Not really. The faith of the Puritans demands that images be removed from the place of worship. It did NOT demand that artifacts of human civilization be demolished for an apocalyptic purpose. There's a huge difference.

It's terrible that statues and stained glass were DESTROYED by iconoclasts. It was NOT terrible that they be removed from the Kirk of God.

It is equally understandable why the chasuble and stole were removed. The minister of God should wear the uniform of his office, but the liturgical seasons are a violation of the Lord's Day, the Sabbath as carried on from the 4th commandment. The absolution does belong if it is adapted by the proper understanding of the Gospel.

Honestly, as ridiculous as some of the English Puritan stands were, it was much more ridiculous what was REQUIRED by the papists. To anyone who sees it as silly that someone would die over the question of whether to have kneelers in the churches, think how much more ridiculous it is to REQUIRE the people of God, without any divine command, to kneel at a specific time.

That said, Cromwell was a dickhead. But he isn't the standard for the Puritans. There are multiple accounts of Puritans imprisoned in the Tower of London playing card games. What Catholic would have allowed that at the time?

Puritans go full on crazy when they go to Murica!!

Good thing the Anglican Church and based Caroline Divines opposed them

The Puritans said we should have heaven in our eye throughout our earthly pilgrimage. They took seriously the Scriptures passages striving to bring every action in conformity with Christ, so that believers would mature and grow in faith.

>protestants

Burger here,

I have an interest in the English Civil War but i've never had the chance to study it in an academic setting (being that most people in the States assume "English Civil War" to refer to the Wars of the Roses).

I have listened to the Revolutions Podcast series on the English Civil war which I think was a good broad overview, but I want to go deeper.

What is some good literature on the subject?

I would prefer reading more about the military side of the conflict, as military history is my main focus, but a solid overview of the cultural, economic, and religious, factors that went into the conflict would be nice as well.

I am also interested in supplemental media like novels set in the time period or documentaries and podcasts and the like.

>Royalists were Papists
What

I like the English Civil War, by Diane Purkiss. It covers the war from the perspectives of both men and women, high and low class, Roundhead and Royalist, through things like letters and diary entries. If you want a "human" understanding of the factors of the war, it's really good, plus it's extremely readable.

They were.

that's actually quite interesting since today the protestant countries are the most secular ones.

Is it true the puritans emigrated from Europe to America mainly because of surrounding society ((such as the netherlands)) being to tolerant of others than intolerant of them?

The tallest fall the hardest?

I am but a lowly amateur military historian, so all I've read about the ECW is from Osprey books. Books from this publisher are good as an introduction, but they aren't the best.

You might want to start off with anything by Brig. Peter Young, then follow up with something else that corrects his glaring mistakes. I feel Peter Young is an important part of the ECW historiography, and shouldn't be just brushed aside straight away.

Yes. They had freedom of religion in the Netherlands. But they wanted to create a whole society based on only THEIR religion, which they could only do in America. When people with different beliefs (like the Quakers) settled nearby, they killed them.

No they weren't...

"The New World" was thought of as a place to do things better than "The Old World". Puritans left for America because they wanted to leave and set up a better society; they didn't really leave because they were persecuted. I'd agree with your point, perhaps their idea of a better society involves one without papists and papist-sympathisers.

>Down with popery!
>And I don't much like scented candles either!

As well as protestants who disagree with them?
Or were they labeled "papist sympatisers"?

...

Sorry, I was speaking without knowing just why the Puritans didn't like the Netherlands, and made a guess it had something to do with papists and anyone who lets papists live with them.

>ancestor sailed across the ocean because of this

...

>As well as protestants who disagree with them?

The idea that "protestants" are a thing is a joke meme on Veeky Forums. A protestant was just any western European Christian who rejected the authority of the pope. There is nothing else in common between them.

It's just Catholic retards spreading this nonsense.

>western European

Eastern European too

Not really, take Murryfatland

America is extremely secular. In fact many European protestant nations still have state churches (England and some of the Lutheran Nordics) so they're far less secular than the US

well what else would you expect from heretics?

>Eastern European too
A eastern european that doesn't recognise the authority of the pope is very likely orthodox, not protestant.

Jan Hus, John Laski, Tranoscius etc. Bohemia and Hungary were majority Protestant until the Habsburg counter reformation.

>radical prods settle new world
>get btfo by negligence and winter
>get saved by literal heathens

lol

>believing meme folk mythology

Now there's that discussion on how one defines eastern europe.

Ahhaha kek Kys

>/int/ retard browses Veeky Forums for the first time: the post

The Plymouth colony only had one bad winter the first year they settled because of poor timing and they didn't know new world crops or animals that well. They began doing extremely well for themselves once they figured out/were taught what to grow and how to grow it.

The Jamestown colony on the other hand had like 5 terrible winters where they almost died because the colonists were obsessed with searching for gold (in fucking coastal Virginia), and they set up their colonial center in a literal swamp. Even after the natives taught them how to grow corn they still couldn't be assed to prepare properly for winter. When John Smith tried to force the colonists to actually prepare properly for winter they practically lynched him.

It wasn't until they figured out how to cultivate tobacco (and it's massive explosion in popularity in England) that the Jamestown colony started to prosper.

Don't get the two mixed up. The Plymouth colony/Massachusetts colonies (the Protestant colonies) only had some slight difficulties at first, the Jamestown and Virginia colonies were the ones that struggled so bad the first few years because of colonial retardation.

Ive heard that some european settlers, who found themselves as a minority surrounded by indians actually tried to integrate and let their hair grow long while emulating some of their rites as long as they werent too different.

The retarded ones all fucked off to murrica and the rest reintegrated into the catholic world.
After some hundred years after the split, the proddys in europe picked up catholic festivals and "pagan" rites such as maypole dancing up again which were hated by their forebears.

>some slight difficulties at first,

I mean, most of your post is accurate, but that's a very understated way of saying "everyone almost died."

>In fact many European protestant nations still have state churches (England and some of the Lutheran Nordics) so they're far less secular than the US
that doesn't mean much in practice. i live in finland and this country is so secular that most de facto atheists don't even bother to resign from the church because it doesn't have any of that "rebelling" aspect it does in places like america. it's actually event worth noting if you meet a young adult who believes in god here.

>The retarded ones all fucked off to murrica
You mean brave ones?

Sorry, but we got rid of a lot of weirdass cultists who were deemed as asocial.
Surely, a lot of brave souls and freethinkers who wanted to escape the rigid social order of europe also founded america, but there is a reason american christianity developed much differently to the european one, while south american christianity is more similar just with another pagan admixture in contrast to the indoeuropean elelments in european christianity.

Papist idols ought to be destroyed and papist idolaters persecuted

you are fucking retarded.

Nice meme

no u r

Cromwell did no genocide whatsoever. And the Irish putting their fingers in their ears every time somebody tells them this doesn't change facts.

In 500 years kids will be told they have ISIS to thank for religious freedom and democracy.

>what is the great potatoe famine?

Didn't know Cromwell lived to 1845, Paddy.

>in practice

Fact: As an American my tax money isn't spent on catholics or baptists or mormons. While in those nordic countries the church is literally funded by taxes. To claim America isn't one of the most secular states on Earth is pure lunacy.

They literally banned all this

So you are saying the church is so weak in those places it can't even survive without government handouts?

No and I don't frankly care, it's a fact their church is affiliated with the state and funded by the taxpayer. That's the literal opposite of secularism.

well yeah, taxes collected by the church itself. no one is forcing you to pay them if you're not a member of that church.