NationStates Jolt Archive

Mary I, the first female Monarch of England. She killed aproximately 300 "heretics" (She was Catholic, they were Purtian) by burning them at the stake. I have been involved in a debate with my History teacher for some time now as I use the word "Genocide" to describe what she did, but he says that is too strong. What do you people think?

Yes, it's too strong. You pretty well have to kill everybody, or try killing everybody, within a given culture or subculture to be guilty of genocide.

300 just doesn't cut it - and throwing around the word 'genocide' just makes for fairly crass sensationalism.

Genocide has to do with genetics, more like religioucide or something to that effect. Trying to kill all the followers of a religion isn't trying to kill everyone born a certain way.

Genocide has to do with genetics, more like religioucide or something to that effect. Trying to kill all the followers of a religion isn't trying to kill everyone born a certain way.

Does that mean Hitler wasnt guilty of Genocide when he tried to destroy all followers of the Jewish faith?

Yes, it's too strong. You pretty well have to kill everybody, or try killing everybody, within a given culture or subculture to be guilty of genocide.


Mary I was trying to kill all Puritans.

As far as I remember from my history the second female monarch of England (Liz mk 1) killed far more people. And in comparrison to other monarch 300 would be considered a rather poor result.

Not trying to excuse her actions, just saying she wasn't the worst of the bunch.

She's still a mass murdering bitch.

Guilty by association, associating herself with nasty factions, such as religous zealots who were scared of the rising opposition to catholicism

Mary I was trying to kill all Puritans.

How do you know for certain what her motivations were?

Mary I was trying to kill all Puritans.
All protestants, or more accurately, all non-Catholics. She didn't care how the 'heathen' decided to label themselves.

I would go with attempted genocide at the most - and a pretty piss poor attempt at that looking at history,

Of course back then, they didn't have genocide, and what she did was a normal part of Royal perogative.

Does that mean Hitler wasnt guilty of Genocide when he tried to destroy all followers of the Jewish faith?

actually yes and no. Hitler was guilty of genocide because he was trying to wipe out members of the hebrew race. however any whites he killed that were jews but not hebrews can't fall under genocide.

How do you know for certain what her motivations were?

Because they are well documented. The deaths of everyone killed during that period were recorded and the charge given as "heritic" or "proclaiming herecy" etc.

Because they are well documented. The deaths of everyone killed during that period were recorded and the charge given as "heritic" or "proclaiming herecy" etc.

You can't determine what Mary's motivations were from individual charges. You need a smoking gun, something she herself wrote wherein she states clearly her intent to perpetrate acts of genocide against an identifiable group of people.

Otherwise, this is just supposition.

You can't determine what Mary's motivations were from individual charges. You need a smoking gun, something she herself wrote wherein she states clearly her intent to perpetrate acts of genocide against an identifiable group of people.

Otherwise, this is just supposition.

The fact that she herself authorised many of these personally on the charges, and that she personally was the one who instigated this attack on the Puritans.

Of course not! What kind of deceptive campaign are you trying to wage here?

The fact that she herself authorised many of these personally on the charges, and that she personally was the one who instigated this attack on the Puritans.
They weren't puritans. I have no idea who has been teaching you your history. They were simply protestants, Puritans may have been included but weren't the only victims.

Mary I, the first female Monarch of England. She killed aproximately 300 "heretics" (She was Catholic, they were Purtian) by burning them at the stake. I have been involved in a debate with my History teacher for some time now as I use the word "Genocide" to describe what she did, but he says that is too strong. What do you people think?

Actually there was a previous Queen called Matilda. She ruled after Henry I who was son of William the Conqueror. However most of her reign was spent in civil war with Stephen, the other claimant to the throne. She lost and fled to France.

Actually there was a previous Queen called Matilda. She ruled after Henry I who was son of William the Conqueror. However most of her reign was spent in civil war with Stephen, the other claimant to the throne. She lost and fled to France.

I am on the "Stephen was the king" side, rather than "Matilda was the Queen". There is Bodica but she wasnt queen of the entire of England, just the largest tribe.

Maybe I'd say differently if she killed 400 Frenchmen, but no, she was not guilty of genocide.

Maybe I'd say differently if she killed 400 Frenchmen, but no, she was not guilty of genocide.
Well, plenty of our Monarchs killed 400+ Frenchmen. Occasionally on the same day. However it seems genocide has a get out clause that if the are armed then it doesn't count.

Well, plenty of our Monarchs killed 400+ Frenchmen. Occasionally on the same day. However it seems genocide has a get out clause that if the are armed then it doesn't count.
Well, I guess I can't count that. Those were the mideval days, and it was one of the most violent periods in European history. It probably meant nothing to some people if they wiped out an entire city. Modern genocide, of course, is different in the sense that it is deliberate annihilation, not slaughtering just for the hell of it (as many Mideival warriors did).

Well, I guess I can't count that. Those were the mideval days, and it was one of the most violent periods in European history. It probably meant nothing to some people if they wiped out an entire city. Modern genocide, of course, is different in the sense that it is deliberate annihilation, not slaughtering just for the hell of it (as many Mideival warriors did).
Surely slaughtering for the sake of it does require an element of deliberate anihilation?

Surely slaughtering for the sake of it does require an element of deliberate anihilation?
Not exactly. I'm convinced that Mideaval warriors just killed people as they were wholly desensitized to it.

Does that mean Hitler wasnt guilty of Genocide when he tried to destroy all followers of the Jewish faith?


He didn't consider them a jewish religion, he considered them the "Jewish race" (and jews are most likely indeed a separate race, the race of semites, khazars, etc, there are many people who call themselves jews, but they aren't white, more like arabs actually)


Semitic Jews and arabs probably have a lot in common genetically.

Not exactly. I'm convinced that Mideaval warriors just killed people as they were wholly desensitized to it.
I think their is slightly more to it than that. But on the whole I think you are right.

Also, just after a fortification is breached I think you really have a lot of pissed off, armed thugs who are just happy to be alive so their adrenaline is quite high (taking fortified position were costly in terms of lives and generally generals had a hard time keeping control of their men after the breach)

I think their is slightly more to it than that. But on the whole I think you are right.

Also, just after a fortification is breached I think you really have a lot of pissed off, armed thugs who are just happy to be alive so their adrenaline is quite high (taking fortified position were costly in terms of lives and generally generals had a hard time keeping control of their men after the breach)
True. Unlike then, most people today aren't soldiers, and even the ones who are don't experience the hand-to-hand combat they did. Until we do, I don't think we can ever understand what went through these soldier's minds. But my gut instinct tells me that it was a sense of perverse, overwhelming joy, and a big shot of testosterone-induced feeling. I would think there'd even be sexual feelings toward comrades at that moment, and indeed, a lot of ancient and mideival warriors seem gay.

Genocide has to do with genetics, more like religioucide or something to that effect. Trying to kill all the followers of a religion isn't trying to kill everyone born a certain way.

Take a look to the UN genocide definition.

Mary I, the first female Monarch of England. She killed aproximately 300 "heretics" (She was Catholic, they were Purtian) by burning them at the stake. I have been involved in a debate with my History teacher for some time now as I use the word "Genocide" to describe what she did, but he says that is too strong. What do you people think?

Yes, she was. But so was the other side - Henry V111, Elizabeth 1 etc.

Each as bad as the other.

Mary I, the first female Monarch of England. She killed aproximately 300 "heretics" (She was Catholic, they were Purtian) by burning them at the stake. I have been involved in a debate with my History teacher for some time now as I use the word "Genocide" to describe what she did, but he says that is too strong. What do you people think?
no but elizabeth the first probably was guilty of genocide against the irish, just as cromwell was a bit later, both may well of killed or allowed to die one third of the irish population.