7/25/97, mike shupp wrote:
>As for changing the state religion, the urge to colonize strikes me as
>inadequate. It would make far more sense for a monarch bent on
>colonization to defy the Pope, plant his colonies, and see what the
>reaction was.
I vote with Nikolai on this point. If a monarch was "bent on
colonization", and this was in some way opposed by Catholocism, he would
want to consolidate his domestic regime before systematically undertaking a
counter-Papal endeavor.
The Catholic Church was not merely a player, of sorts, in international
affairs, but it maintained infrastructures in each nation, with
considerable political and economic influence, and had a direct channel to
influencing public attitudes through the parish pulpits.
A monarch who left this infrastructure in place while embarking on
counter-Papal adventures would be creating a focus for domestic dissent, he
would leave himself open to the Church organizing opposition among
disaffected elements. Monarchs may have been in theory more or less
absolute, but the excercise of their power involved various accomodations
with other societal forces, symbolized, we might say, by the Magna Carta.
A captain preparing for action does not leave a loose cannon on his deck.
I think Nikolai may have crystallized a profound insight regarding the
relationships among expansionism, protestantism, and nationalism.
rkm