...Gunpowder, treason, and plot!

Catholic plot to wipe out Protestant English Establishment - 400 years ago

On November 5th 1605, a plot was discovered among a small group of Catholics, working alone, but inspired by longstanding hostility between Catholics and Protestants (ring any bells?). They had planted 36 barrels of black powder directly underneath the old House of Lords, and planned to blow it up the very next day, while the Protestant King James I of England (James IV of Scotland) and his parliament were in session.

A recent reconstruction showed that not only would every one of the 300-400 people in the hall have been killed, but many or most of the passers-by inside a quarter mile radius (likely into the thousands) would also have been killed or seriously injured.

By any measure, the plot would qualify as terrorism in today's parlance, and could conceivably have killed on a similar scale to the 9-11 attacks in a single explosion, and caused far greater national choas, removing at a stroke the whole apparatus of the British state.

The plotters were caught, however, and were hanged, drawn, and quartered (which was about the most gruesome execution used anywhere at the time).

What might the consequences have been had the plotters succeeded, both for British, American and wider European and world history?

What other historical attacks or attempted attacks would qualify as terrorism under modern definitions? Let's keep things tight and limit ourselves to pre-1900 events.

What, if anything, can we learn about modern terrorism by studying historical examples?

What other historical attacks or attempted attacks would qualify as terrorism under modern definitions?
- Boston Tea Party
- Indian Raids against US settlers in the 1800's
- Muhammad's raids against Meccan caravans during the holy month c. 600

What, if anything, can we learn about modern terrorism by studying historical examples?
Well, we no longer persecute folks because of their religion - burn people at the stake or hang them, dispossess them of their homes, reduce them to serfdom, etc.. Which is what England did with the Catholics around 1600. I've heard that 'the man' is a likeness of the Pope in Northern Ireland even today. Say what you will about Guy Fawkes, at least his grievances were real.

I don't think what Guy Fawkes did was terrorism by the definition that we should employ.

A small group killing a large group is not terrorism. Terrorism is an attack upon civilians to generate fear and a change of policy. An actual attack upon the government fits better under the definition of revolt or treason (depending upon your point of view).

Therefore, Guy Fawkes was not a terrorist, he was a rebel. Now, had he targeted York Minster, then he would have been a terrorist.

What other historical attacks or attempted attacks would qualify as terrorism under modern definitions?

I think Robespierre's Jacobin takeover of the French government applies.
IRA bombings definitely.

What, if anything, can we learn about modern terrorism by studying historical examples?

Terrorism cannot achieve long-lasting ends. Because of the nature of terrorism (the killing of marginally involved innocents), the terrorist can never be taken seriously in his demands for redress. Killing of those responsible for your plight (i.e. ala Fawkes or the Boston Tea Party) is not terrorism, it is revolt.

My guess is we wouldn't be using a "King James Version" of the Bible





On the WMD front, the use of infectious corpses and exposing of linens to anthrax comes to mind. Excuse the senior moment, for I don't recall exactly the circumstances of each. I seem to recall plague or influenza being introduced somewhere during a siege. Likewise I believe it was colonials who were purported to be giving natives bedding laced with anthrax., but I'll stand corrected...




The most obvious is the way the "terrorists" were dealt with, they had the recidivism problem all worked out. Now they are "entitled" to 3 squares, cable TV and a mat to pray on with an arrow pointing towards mecca....

I'm not familiar enough with the balance of power between the Catholics and Protestants at the time. Unquestionably their would have been massive repression of one side or the other. The wider ramifications on history are unknowable.

These debates have never really come to an agreement on a definition of terrorism. I assume you don't want to include government acts like the Belgian exploitation of the Congolese which included cutting off hands for minor offenses or the massacres and forced relocations of Indians. If included, the list would be endless.

One thing I would definitely include would be the suppression of Black Americans in the South after the end of reconstruction. All types of terrorist methods were used to "keep them in their place" up to and including lynchings.

We can learn from historical terrorism that torrorism is nothing new. That it is a means to exert control or modify behavior of others. It would be far easier to illustrate this by using post 1900 examples.

I think this statement is really interesting. Would you agree then, that the Sri Lankan Tigers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_Ti..._of_Tamil_Eelam

are not a terrorist organization? They have used such implements as suicide bombs and other more "traditional" terrorist implements (they are actually credited with inventing the suicide bomb), against governmental officials and other members of their perceived oppressors. Often civilians are killed in their attacks, however, the targets seem to always have a purpose.

Additionally, this point kind of goes with Carlito's in that depending on who you ask, the government of Sri Lanka has been quite oppressive and violated the people's human rights. Assuming the government is oppressive, are tactics like the Tigers to be held up to be viewed as rebels by the world community, as opposed to terrorist? If so, then we would have to go against the CIA's factbook on the Tigers.

I also like that Carlito pointed out American Indians, as I think they are almost (yes I have been places in the midwest where this is not at all the view), but almost universally viewed as an oppressed and under siege people defending their homelands. Despite acts against children, women, and helpless settlers, it's rare that the idea that Indians were Terrorists comes to mind in contemporary consciousness.

Sorry for seemingly taking this off-topic, but I do have a point that's related and on topic:
Comparing historical terrorism to contemporary terrorism, I think, gives me perspective on how our actions today will be perceived in 100 or 150 years by our great-grandchildren when it comes to dealing with our century's terrorists.

What might the consequences have been had the plotters succeeded, both for British, American and wider European and world history?

If a bomb of that size had gone off in the middle of England, I think it would probably be a household "historical" term. It's an interesting question to think of whether the 1000's of people who were killed would be remembered more sigficantly over the effect it had on political history. My guess? The people would probably be a small notation at the bottom of the history page. Unless of course Howard Zinn was writing it

What other historical attacks or attempted attacks would qualify as terrorism under modern definitions? Let's keep things tight and limit ourselves to pre-1900 events.

I think to counter Carlito's point, I would have to say that American attacks against the Native American people would definitely qualify as terrorist, by the definition that the attacks are against a people and not leaders or soldiers (the disputed small pox blankets incidents comes to mind).

However, this may be closer to the genocides found throughout history, although I see a strange parrel between the small pox blankets and the anthrax envelopes.

What, if anything, can we learn about modern terrorism by studying historical examples?

As I mentioned above, I think you can put contemporary actions more easily in perspective by looking at history. It's important to remember these actions, as it is almost impossible to devoid yourself emotionally from actions occurring in contemporary times.

What other historical attacks or attempted attacks would qualify as terrorism under modern definitions?
There are a plethora of "modern definitions". Some are so vague and all-encompassing as to truly fit the old cliche one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. But for me, it is simple. Whatever the tactics used, if the radical organization in question primarily targets civilians in their attacks, they are terrorists.

What, if anything, can we learn about modern terrorism by studying historical examples?
An understanding of the historical context of terrorism - as with virtually any other topic - greatly aids in understanding todays terrorism. The period which has most application to today is that of the anarchists of the mid-to-late 1800s.

Karl Heinzen, one of the early anarchists, wrote in 1848 If you have to blow up half a continent and pour out a sea of blood in order to destroy the party of the barbarians, have no scruples or conscience. He is no true man who would not gladly pay with his life for the satisfaction of exterminating a million barbarians.

That bit could pass for the virulent rantings of one of today's jihadist terrorists.

In another similarity to todays worries, anarchists dreamed of developing WMD capability for their acts of terrorism. They wrote of the potential for use of poison gas, ballistic missiles (such as congreve rockets), and "mines" that could destroy a city.

This article published in The Economist back in August is an interesting read: For Jihadist, Read Anarchist