NationStates Jolt Archive

November 5th 1605, one of the first time a group of people tried to bomb London (specifically the Houses of Parliment).

Well it's more like celebrating 400 years of ineffectual terrorism. I don't really know what my point is. Maybe it's that terrorism has been around a looooong time. Or maybe that the UK has never given into terrorism. Or maybe I don't really have point. I guess I just connected Guy Fawkes and the current 'war' on terror.

Woah... this here link says that there was enough gunpower to do serious damage to all buildings in a 500m metre radius and level everything within a 100m metre radius. Considering at the time London only covered an area of about 5 square kilometres. Eek.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,1605605,00.html
http://go.hrw.com/hrw.nd/gohrw_rls1/pKeywordResults?keyword=st9%20london%201600

Remember, remember the fifth of November,
gunpowder, treason and plot,
I see no reason why gunpowder treason should ever be forgot.
Guy Fawkes, Guy Fawkes, 'twas his intent
to blow up the King and the Parliament.
Three score barrels of powder below,
Poor old England to overthrow:
By God's providence he was catch'd
With a dark lantern and burning match.
Holloa boys, holloa boys, make the bells ring.
Holloa boys, holloa boys, God save the King!
Hip hip hoorah!

A penny loaf to feed the Pope.
A farthing o' cheese to choke him.
A pint of beer to rinse it down.
A faggot of sticks to burn him.
Burn him in a tub of tar.
Burn him like a blazing star.
Burn his body from his head.
Then we'll say ol' Pope is dead.
Hip hip hoorah!
Hip hip hoorah!


Though I am pretty sure that terrorism has been around longer then that.

Would the Hashshashin not qualify?

NB: Not saying the Hashshashin were the first, just the first to spring to mind.

Would the Hashshashin not qualify?

NB: Not saying the Hashshashin were the first, just the first to spring to mind.

I don't think so. The Hashshashin were essentially a combat group that took some kind of drug/smoke prior to fighting weren't they?

The Hashshashin lived in a mountain fortress, Alamut, located in the barrens of northwestern Persia. The Isma'ili community (an off-shoot of Shi'i) that lived there from the around the end of the 11th century, into the mid-13th century (1090 AD to 1256 AD, or 166 years) espoused a philosophy that was thought by the rest of the region to be heretical and dangerous. Or at least to be too effective a political and cultural challenge to the status quo. They developed, indeed they cultivated, a reputation of being able to place burried agents in any social structure, at any level, allowing them to kill anyone they felt was too threatening. I suspect that this was more deliberate hype than actual fact, but they *did* carry out some spectacular assassinations, which lent weight to their propoganda.

Yeah, they were terrorists. Fairly successful ones, at that.

Of course, their foes turned their own propoganda back on them, and demonized them rather efficiently.

Hmm, they were later, but what about vikings? they were at least seen as terrorists back then, weren't they?

So what is everyone doing for Bonfire Night?

Hmm, they were later, but what about vikings? they were at least seen as terrorists back then, weren't they?

I don't know. Wouldn't it be more akin to piracy? The whole bit about pillage and looting? They weren't really around to affect political change other than "gimme your money and your women" weren't they?

So what is everyone doing for Bonfire Night?
Working. :(

Hopefully I'll be setting things on fire and blowing shit up! Yay!

Some people in boston destroy the british tea- a very important commodity at the time and are remembered as heroes

Some people in iraq destroy the oil fields- a very important commodity at the time and are called terrorists

November 5th 1605, one of the first time a group of people tried to bomb London (specifically the Houses of Parliment).

Well it's more like celebrating 400 years of ineffectual terrorism. I don't really know what my point is. Maybe it's that terrorism has been around a looooong time. Or maybe that the UK has never given into terrorism. Or maybe I don't really have point. I guess I just connected Guy Fawkes and the current 'war' on terror.

Woah... this here link says that there was enough gunpower to do serious damage to all buildings in a 500m metre radius and level everything within a 100m metre radius. Considering at the time London only covered an area of about 5 square kilometres. Eek.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,1605605,00.html
http://go.hrw.com/hrw.nd/gohrw_rls1/pKeywordResults?keyword=st9%20london%201600

I think the celebration is for the people who AVERTED the act, not the people who planned it (we don't burn the yeoman of the guard every november fifth, but we burn "guy") so it's a celebration of stopping terrorism, not the act :}

I don't know. Wouldn't it be more akin to piracy? The whole bit about pillage and looting? They weren't really around to affect political change other than "gimme your money and your women" weren't they?
Yeah, I guess. But there were probably some people who considered them terrorists. *Refuses to lose :p *

Some people in boston destroy the british tea- a very important commodity at the time and are remembered as heroes

Some people in iraq destroy the oil fields- a very important commodity at the time and are called terrorists

Sigh.

They are nowhere near the same thing :rolleyes:. The American Revolution was a home-grown rebellion fought with guerilla tactics against an occupying army of foreigners and mercenaries...

I don't think so. The Hashshashin were essentially a combat group that took some kind of drug/smoke prior to fighting weren't they?

They were group dedicated to the murder of the Seljuk rulers who persecuted their sect. And who sought to publicise their murders by eliminating their target in public places (including mosques).

Also have been greatly romantisised and demonised, just like terrorists today ;)

I think the celebration is for the people who AVERTED the act, not the people who planned it (we don't burn the yeoman of the guard every november fifth, but we burn "guy") so it's a celebration of stopping terrorism, not the act :}

It is also a warning that Catholics could not be fully trusted and their alligience was not towards the English/British monarch ;).

If you don't agree with me that the celebration also had anti-catholic sentiments, just read the second verse of the traditional song I posted in my first post in this thread. :)

Sigh.

They are nowhere near the same thing :rolleyes:. American Revolution was a home-grown rebellion fought with guerilla tactics against an occupying army of foreigners and mercenaries...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't a large part of the US a part of the British Empire, and didn't the british bring most settlers there? A real home-grown rebellion against an occupying army of foreigners and mercenaries would be the native americans fighting off the settlers and british, wouldn't it?

Sigh.

They are nowhere near the same thing :rolleyes:. The American Revolution was a home-grown rebellion fought with guerilla tactics against an occupying army of foreigners and mercenaries...


I hope that was sarcasm

Hmm, they were later, but what about vikings? they were at least seen as terrorists back then, weren't they?

Exactly what political change were they trying to bring about through acts of terror?*


* Ignoring the fact that for the most part they came in peace, inter-married with the locals and got down to the serious business of agriculture which had driven them to the British Isles in the first place due to the lack of fertile soil and good grazing pastures in their homelands.

It is also a warning that Catholics could not be fully trusted and their alligience was not towards the English/British monarch ;).

If you don't agree with me that the celebration also had anti-catholic sentiments, just read the second verse of the traditional song I posted in my first post in this thread. :)

But before the plot the King was screwing over the Catholics good and proper - they had no where near equal rights. If I were them I would probably not have cited him as my first alligience either.

And the celebration was hugely anti-catholic at the start, but hardly anyone knows the second verse nowadays - ask a kid on the street and they won't - because it has been toned down just to celebrate the prevention of the blowing up part.

It is also a warning that Catholics could not be fully trusted and their alligience was not towards the English/British monarch ;).


Meh. I thought it was a celebration of an honest man entering the Palace of Westminster for the one and only time in recorded history.

I hope that was sarcasm

Could it be any more obvious?

I have to admit I got it from Bill Maher. The whole piece is:

New Rule: Defenders of the war in Iraq must stop comparing it to the American Revolution. The only thing the Iraqi leadership has in common with our founding fathers is that neither of them used deodorant. Now, the sight of Iraqis having a constitutional convention has put a lump in the throat of Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney, all of whom have compared the American patriots of 1776 to our soldiers in Iraq today, mostly because they're using the same equipment.

Let's just mention a few ways this analogy breaks down. One: the American Revolution was a home-grown rebellion fought with guerilla tactics against an occupying army of foreigners and mercenaries. Okay, that is exactly what's going on in Iraq. Oh, except for one thing: This time, WE'RE ENGLAND!

You need proof? The only people on our side? England. Turns out, home field advantage, very important in wars.

Could it be any more obvious?

I have to admit I got it from Bill Maher. The whole piece is:

New Rule: ...This time, WE'RE ENGLAND!

You need proof? The only people on our side? England. Turns out, home field advantage, very important in wars.

Pity this chap doesn't know the difference between the 'Kingdom of Great Britain', the 'UK of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' and 'England'.

But before the plot the King was screwing over the Catholics good and proper - they had no where near equal rights. If I were them I would probably not have cited him as my first alligience either.

True, but the Gunpowder Plot really was a boon To King Jimmy.

And the celebration was hugely anti-catholic at the start, but hardly anyone knows the second verse nowadays - ask a kid on the street and they won't - because it has been toned down just to celebrate the prevention of the blowing up part.

To be honest. I doubt the average person on the street would know past "I see no reason, why the Gunpowder treason, should every be forgot".

Though anti-Catholicism only really died out fairly recently. Well according to oral history from those I know much older than I.

Meh. I thought it was a celebration of an honest man entering the Palace of Westminster for the one and only time in recorded history.

:D

Exactly what political change were they trying to bring about through acts of terror?*

Turning back the tide?

Pity this chap doesn't know the difference between the 'Kingdom of Great Britain', the 'UK of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' and 'England'.

True. But it is very rare indeed for anyone to allow facts to get in the way of a good (?) joke.

True. But it is very rare indeed for anyone to allow facts to get in the way of a good (?) joke.

Agreed. However, then when that joke which has already rode roughshod over the facts is dragged out in support of an actual argument then the situation becomes precarious, to say the least.

Turning back the tide?

You Canute be serious.

Agreed. However, then when that joke which has already rode roughshod over the facts is dragged out in support of an actual argument then the situation becomes precarious, to say the least.
>.>
<.<

Well, I'll take "supporting an arguement" over a "weak attempt at humour" any day.

The Boston Tea Party was really about lack of representation in Parliament.

The tax on tea may have been an excuse, but considering the amount of money the British Navy was spending protecting the colonies from the French (and others) it was hardly a particularly valid excuse.


Lack of representation was a problem, but equally the large new cities such a Liverpool and Birmingham were equally screwed when it came to proper representation. Obviously these cities could not seccede or anything else, but eventually rioting also led to equal representation.

Incidentally George Washington very much considered himself an English Gentleman Farmer. Some historians have even suggested that as the richest man in America at the time, he promulgated the revolution (which was not really popular until George III, Cornwallis et al completely screwed up the PR situation) because he did not want to pay taxes (which compared to taxes in the UK were very very low anyway).

So it is in no way comparable to the situation in Iraq.


Also anti-catholic sentiment was rife because of the Pope's machinations in the first place. Remember there were several previous plots in which Catholic supporters tried to assinate Elizabeth I and replace her with Mary Queen of Scots. At this time Elizabeth was reasonably religiously tolerant (when compared with her Siblings (Edward VI - Protestant Reformation, and Mary Tudor (catholic) - She was called bloody Mary for a reason).

God i so wish Guy had succeeded.

You Canute be serious.
LOL:)

Apparently they had enough Gun powder to Blow up the Parliment Buildings two times over.

Isnt it truely special that the Parliment was so willing ot rent out the cellars under their very feet to anyone and how it nearly jumped up and bit them on the arse?