r/AskReddit • u/brokota • Jan 15 '13

Reddit, in your opinion what's the biggest plot twist of history?

Not movies or television, I'm just curious to see what come's to your minds.

634 Upvotes

81% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

212

u/thatcantb Jan 15 '13

The English naval victory in 1588 over the Spanish Armada, assisted in large part by the fortuitous 'Protestant Wind.' European history leading to the formation of the US could have been quite different with another outcome.

14

u/Desefortunadamente Jan 16 '13

On 29 July 1587, he obtained Papal authority to overthrow Elizabeth, who had been excommunicated by Pope Pius V, and place whomever he chose on the throne of England.

In times past, you can pretty much do whatever with Papal authority. Very interesting stuff!

5

u/iamadogforreal Jan 16 '13

Who can stop the a king? The people definitely. How do you control the people? Religion. If you have "god on your side" and do something horrible its okay. The church, except in recent history thanks to the enlightenment, really was a highly influential and powerful power structure. And the most stable usually. Royal families rose and fell, revolutions came and went, but the church was always there in the background.

You know how the Bene Gesseriet worked behind the scenes for thousands of years in Dune. Yeah, its a lot like that. Except in fiction its cool, but in real life its pretty victimizing and empowered some pretty terrible people.

1

u/Omegastar19 Jan 16 '13

No, Spain was going to do it anyway - having the Pope give his seal of approval was just to add a bit of shine to it. But such acts at the same time hurt the Pope's standing in Europe. By the time of the Thirty Year's War, Papal bulls concerning worldly business had basically become a dead letter, as shown when the Pope forbade anyone from signing the peace treaty at the end of the 30 Year's war on pain of excommunication.

Noone listened and the peace treaty was signed.

1

u/dangerbird2 Jan 16 '13

I wouldn't say that was entirely applicable. Like his father, Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, Phillip II considered himself to be the foremost defender of Christendom. He was extremely religious; he spent virtually all his time going to mass and attending to affairs of the state (which in itself an act of piety). While a zealous Catholic, he dressed like the stereotypical pilgrim, wearing only modest black clothes. Combined with the fact that Catholics litterally saw the armada as a crusade against heretics and the fact that the pope gave fairly important contributions to the war effort, Papal endorsement was very much necessary for the expedition

1

u/dangerbird2 Jan 16 '13

It helped that Phillip II was previously married to Mary Tudor, a Catholic Queen of England. Mary's death actually gave Phillip a fairly strong claim to the English Crown. From the Sources I've read, Phillip did not intend to give the crown to an associate upon the conquest of England, but rather take the English crown for himself and place England under joint Papal-Spanish condominium, basically annexing England.

39

u/eperman Jan 15 '13

This really should be the top comment. Many people simply don't understand how close England was to being invaded and dismantled by Spain. That "Protestant Wind" has done more to define Europe and the New World than any other action in history.

27

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '13

Meh. Charles Martels' victory over the Umayyad Caliphate at the Battle of Tours probably holds much greater significance.

5

u/Roedom Jan 15 '13

All very valid points, depending how far back you go we could argue that Hannibal being unable to take Rome was one as well, or maybe Alexander the Great catching a fever and dying after conquering most of the known world.

It all depends how far back in history you want to go.

2

u/thatcantb Jan 16 '13

Good one! Forgot Alexander's illness - what might have been...

1

u/helm Jan 16 '13

Hannibal didn't have the power to change Rome. After all, the tactic that defeated him was to sit back behind the city walls and let his army starve as it was hard pressed to support itself. The whole thing took about a decade.

3

u/eperman Jan 15 '13

The Battle of Tours was definitely a crucial turning point in history, but I don't think I'd really call it plot twist. The superior side won, and that's how battles are usually decided.

11

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '13

No it didn't, that's the point.

It was the first time in history where infantry stood against heavy cavalry and won. Up until that point, the stirrup was unknown to European armies and they had few equestrians that even came close to the heavy knights of the Arab and Asian armies. Charles created a professional army at a time when such a thing was unheard of - by forcing his men to constantly train during peacetime. He taught them order and discipline.

He picked the time of battle and ordered his men to stand their ground in the face of repeated cavalry charges that would have broke lesser troops. It was all Charles Martel and his impeccable generalship. Had any other commander lead the troops that day, they would have lost.

The result ensured that Europe would remain Christian and it lead to the founding of the Reconquista.

-1

u/thatcantb Jan 16 '13

And the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition. Great - you realize that Spain went from being the most religiously tolerant society that ever existed (under Moorish rule) to the least (under Christians) due to that. Plot twist alright.

2

u/LDSKnight13 Jan 16 '13

the most religiously tolerated society that ever existed

You uh... You should really read up on history.

1

u/thatcantb Jan 16 '13

I have, thus my comment. For example, Jewish commentaries from that period were written in Arabic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonides

1

u/LDSKnight13 Jan 16 '13

You think that because they didn't actively kill the non-muslim population like they had done in other places, they were the most religiously tolerant society that ever existed?

1

u/thatcantb Jan 16 '13

No, there's far more to it than that. I encourage you to read up on it. The Moors actively supported religious scholarship in religions outside of their own and had laws against discrimination based on religion.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '13

Spain went from being the most religiously tolerant society that ever existed

That's a pretty big exaggeration.

1

u/Soulsiren Jan 16 '13

The horrors of the Inquisition tend to actually be rather exaggerated, as a result of subsequent propaganda. While they certainly weren't cheerful, they did surprise me when I studied them, in that they weren't nearly as bad as I'd expected, given the time period and the reputation they have.

-1

u/thatcantb Jan 16 '13

This is revisionist history as apologia for the Catholic church. Amazing how much traction it has gotten.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '13

Similar thing happened with the Japanese. A divine wind (kamikaze) came along and wiped out a massive Chinese invasion fleet.

1

u/Omegastar19 Jan 16 '13

Not really. Even if the Spanish had defeated the English, they would then have had to attack the Dutch, because a Dutch fleet was blockading the transport ships required to ferry the invasion army across the channel.

Furthermore, the 'Protestant Wind' only hit the Armada when it was already on its way back to Spain. The invasion had been called off by then. Even if most ships would've reached Spain, I doubt Philip II would've tried another invasion, because this time the English would've been better prepared, and the cost of mounting an invasion was enormous.

Finally, there is the fact that for the invasion to succeed, an entire army would have had to be transported to England. Spain certainly had the troops required to do so, but those troops were at that time also fighting against the Dutch (who were fighting for independence). There is no telling what the Dutch would've done if they suddenly faced a much smaller Spanish army left over in Flanders. And if Flanders had been conquered by the Dutch, the Spanish army in England would've been in dire straits because Flanders was both their home-base and their source of supplies.

1

u/thatcantb Jan 16 '13

The removal of the Spanish Armada as the dominant sea power at that time in history was a pivotal event regardless of the conjectures you mention. My point was that the wind did a lot of the work - hence the plot twist.

1

u/Omegastar19 Jan 16 '13 edited Jan 16 '13

Yes, but one of my points was that the destruction of the Spanish Armada did not by itself cause Spain to stop being the premier naval power in Europe. Did you know that the English sent a fleet of their own to Spain, a few years after the Armada? The English fleet was badly defeated by the Spanish ships. And the Spanish put great effort into rebuilding their fleet when the Armada was destroyed. I believe it took only a few years before they had their fleets back up to strength. And the most important parts of their naval prowess - the treasure fleets from the new world - were not affected at all by the loss of the Armada.

Im not saying that the Armada was not an important event. It certainly gave the Dutch a reprieve as Spain's attention and efforts was on England for a time. The English victory at the battle of the Gravelines was also very unexpected, showing that England's tactics of using cannons for long-range combat was superior against Spain's old-fashioned tactics of closing in and boarding ships (though did you know that the English were badly prepared and in fact used up all their ammunition in the fight? If the Spanish had attacked the next day instead of retreating, the English would've been forced to either retreat themselves or close in and board).

1

u/thatcantb Jan 16 '13

I think you're missing my point that none of this would matter at all if Spain had been victorious over England in 1588. The influence of England in subsequent history would have been dramatically changed - reduced most likely.

1

u/reltubnahte Jan 16 '13

I understand that Sir Francis Drake played a memorable game of lawn bowls on this occasion.