The Enlightenment 1690-1750

[kintire]

But, in the end Charles was the foe of any religious freedom and an advocate of Absolute Monarchy

Actually, Charles was the friend of religious freedom, notably for Catholics. This was met with fury by his opponents!

To be fair, it wasn't quite as simple as that: Catholicism at the time came with a lot of political baggage, including support for absolute monarchy. Charles is certainly guilty as charged on that front.

Cromwell, like Milton, was an advocate, however flawed, of religious freedom and constitutional governemt.

You are seriously confused. Specifically, you are confused between Parliament and Cromwell. Although fighting as a general in the parliamentarian cause, constitutional government's annoying habit of pretending that you have to care what people who disagree with you think was anathema to Cromwell, and he overthrew Parliament in a military coup, introducing an absolutist dictatorship with as little religious freedom as he could POSSIBLY manage.

 

[soltakss]

I'm always surprised that people still care about the English Civil War.

In any case, it's 50 years before the period that Astomancer mentioned in the original post.

As a Brit who has never sneered about any country being descended from Puritans, I'm just please that we have turned out to be a fairly liberal country, mainly by expelling extremists several times in the past.

As for Clockwork and Chivalry, I haven't bought it as finances are against me. However, a lot of history is opinion, most conflicts have several shades of grey and the English Civil War is a veritable rainbow of greys. It's not just Roundheads and Cavaliers, Puritans and the established Church, commoners and nobles, people seemed to fight based on their consciences as well as their political loyalties. In any case, this is Alternate Fantasy, based on a slightly skewed version of history, so events and characters may well differ from the norm.

A game can be well researched and still not please everyone as people's interpretations of events and motivations differ. The main question should be "Does it work as a game?" or "Is it fun to play?" everything else is irrelevant.

 

[carandol]

As for Clockwork and Chivalry, I haven't bought it as finances are against me. However, a lot of history is opinion, most conflicts have several shades of grey and the English Civil War is a veritable rainbow of greys. It's not just Roundheads and Cavaliers, Puritans and the established Church, commoners and nobles, people seemed to fight based on their consciences as well as their political loyalties. In any case, this is Alternate Fantasy, based on a slightly skewed version of history, so events and characters may well differ from the norm.

A game can be well researched and still not please everyone as people's interpretations of events and motivations differ. The main question should be "Does it work as a game?" or "Is it fun to play?" everything else is irrelevant.

Well, nobody's bought it, because it doesn't come out until July! That "veritable rainbow of greys" (I like that!) and the numerous factions are just what we're trying to portray in the game -- but when it comes down to it, "is it fun to play?" is our main concern. Our playtest groups are having a blast, so I guess we're doing something right.

 

[Astromancer]

But, in the end Charles was the foe of any religious freedom and an advocate of Absolute Monarchy

Actually, Charles was the friend of religious freedom, notably for Catholics. This was met with fury by his opponents!

To be fair, it wasn't quite as simple as that: Catholicism at the time came with a lot of political baggage, including support for absolute monarchy. Charles is certainly guilty as charged on that front.

Charles probably wanted to move the C of E much closer to Catholoicism, mainly to improve his chances of being an absolute monarch. He never could understand why anyone might object to this. He made it clear he'd fight for absolute monarchy and vengence until he died, so they killed him.

Cromwell, like Milton, was an advocate, however flawed, of religious freedom and constitutional governemt.

You are seriously confused. Specifically, you are confused between Parliament and Cromwell. Although fighting as a general in the parliamentarian cause, constitutional government's annoying habit of pretending that you have to care what people who disagree with you think was anathema to Cromwell, and he overthrew Parliament in a military coup, introducing an absolutist dictatorship with as little religious freedom as he could POSSIBLY manage.

I've read Cromwell's writting, what there is of them, and I try to judge/analyse his actions against his time period. Oliver was actually fairly humble and decent. His failures of imagination led to his brutalities. Just about all of which his later actions show he regretted and felt sham for. Had Cromwell had the imagination or simply the gift of trust that Washington had, he'd be remembered as a great hero. But he failed in but trust and imagination so his virtues became vices.

Sad, he should had turned to Milton and Lilburton. He didn't.[/b]

 

[Lord High Munchkin]

However, Cromwell was an excellent dancer (such was commented upon).

 

[carandol]

However, Cromwell was an excellent dancer (such was commented upon).

Though not at Christmas.

And as Emma Goldman said, "If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution."

 

[Lord High Munchkin]

It was public dancing they hated and wanted to stop—it being held to lead to immorality (particularly of a sexual nature). Private dancing was perfectly fine.

 

[soltakss]

Reminds me of a joke from Rob Roy (religious group amended):

Why don't Puritans like sex standing up?
Because it might lead to dancing.

 

[Astromancer]

However, Cromwell was an excellent dancer (such was commented upon).

I shall tell the Irish that! They won't believe me, but I believe you.

 

[Astromancer]

However, Cromwell was an excellent dancer (such was commented upon).

Though not at Christmas.

And as Emma Goldman said, "If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution."

I always wondered where and when the Anti-Christmas stuff got into Calvinism. John Calvin loved holidays.

 

[Lord High Munchkin]

It was the hint of sexual depravity that got them going (you can sort of still see an echo in some US attitudes even today—ultraviolence is fine, Janet Jackson's nipple not fine).

Having said that, there was such a splintering of sects and mini-churches in the 17th C, that all tried to differentiate themselves from each other, that all sorts of odd ideas crept in, from snake-handling to dancing hating (à la Donald Rumsfeld).

Of course, hating sexuality is not unique to Protestants... ever wondered why there is almost no arm or hand movement in "traditional" Irish dancing? It got removed due to pressure from the Catholic clergy... as they thought it encouraged sexuality.

Cromwell would have groaned.

 

[carandol]

And not just the sex -- the Twelve Days of Christmas really was a 12 day holiday, with much eating, drinking and being merry. Banning it was as much about cutting down on the drunkenness and the gluttony as the sex. Plus a lot of English festivals (e.g. May Day) were associated with both old Catholic traditions, and obvious remnants of old pagan customs.

Luther was very down on a lot of Catholic holidays as part of the corruption of the church, one of the signs that it had wandered from the old "pure" church of days gone by, and got rid of the Saints' Days. I guess he started the whole "dour" side of Protestantism -- though he could write a good hymn!

 

[Lord High Munchkin]

I take it that many here have seen the old D&D2 supplement "A Mighty Fortress"?

It covers the late 16th-17th century, and actually I thought the historical supplements were the best things about D&D2.

 

[klingsor]

The novel A Midsummer Tempest by Poul Anderson is worth a look for alternative history/fantasy ECW shenanigans. I remember being very taken with it when I read it though that was a long time ago when I knew little about the ECW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Midsummer_Tempest

 

[Atlatl Jones]

For North America during this period, the Northern Crown setting published by Atlas is fantastic. It's essentially a fictional 17-18th century colonial North America, with the most interesting aspects conflated together so they can all be used in the same timeframe.

 

[serene_muse]

I take it that many here have seen the old D&D2 supplement "A Mighty Fortress"?

It covers the late 16th-17th century, and actually I thought the historical supplements were the best things about D&D2.

Yes and yes! Great stuff considering it was a TSR gaming book. Useful map even.

For general history I recommend two volumes of Norton's History of Modern Europe series, The Age of Religious Wars, 1559-1715 and Kings and Philosophers, 1689-1789. Short and readable yet chock full of info. Should be easy to find too and while the research is old for general purposes it's fine.

Osprey covers the post-ECW and Age of Marlborough / Great Northern War / Age of Reason well and of course the ECW being a British firm.

So does the Art of Warfare books (David Chandler) and IIRC a series of Keegan editied coffee table warfare books.

The bias and bulk of information in English will be on England (witness it being called The Age of Marlborough when he was one among many great commanders of the era) but there's a good bit on other nations and conflicts.

http://www.warflag.com/blenheim2004/enfilade.html
is a good start

So um, as to a RPG covering this all? Yes please!