There's some great posts here - why not join my Q&A Session and discuss the points further - It would be nice to see you there:

http://www.goodreads.com/group/show/1726...

Regards
Mark

LOL
I think the cod piece was from the previous century

Manuel wrote: "I hope I dont offend anyone by my next statement.

My friend who played Charles II said, his costume was very accurate, he also had to wear the petticoats you mentioned Susanna.
He said "his boy..."

Did he them compare to a codpiece as well as boxers?

I hope I dont offend anyone by my next statement.

My friend who played Charles II said, his costume was very accurate, he also had to wear the petticoats you mentioned Susanna.
He said "his boys" felt cool and comfortable, more so, than when he wore his jockey shorts or boxers.

You forgot to mention the waist length wigs and hats....a la Louis XIV

The period includes one of the styles for men that I find most hilarious: petticoat breeches.

Went to a performance once of one of Moliere's plays (The Miser, I think), and the costumers had put the young fop in it into petticoat breeches! I laughed and laughed; they were both ridiculous and period-appropriate.

Point taken Susanna....

I should have said more comfortable for men.

I had a friend who was in a play about Charles II. He loved the clothes, because they were comfortable.
I imagine the clothes of the era were probably very hard to clean, so they probably smelled.

Comfortable? I don't know about that with the ladies; I would not want to wear whalebone stays, myself.

Always happy to remind people of synchronicity :)

Coyle wrote: "Well, no technically even without science we'd still be in the 21st century, it would just be a bit less electrified :)"

Coyle's comment reminds me of the Frantz Fanon's concept of "failure of synchronicity." ( think that's the term. I'll have to look it up) It's the false idea that people who exist at a lower stage of technical development or technology use live in a different period. You read often in books about people who say, "Visiting such and such place is stepping back in time." Well, not really. Science has different effects depending on where one lives and one's class and economic standing.

yeah
the clothes would be very comfortable, if not colorful.

Susanna wrote: "And shorter lifespans.

(Edited to add: And yours truly would almost certainly be dead.)"

We would probably all have great hats though...

And shorter lifespans.

(Edited to add: And yours truly would almost certainly be dead.)

And we'd all be a bit stinky...and have less teeth...

Well, no technically even without science we'd still be in the 21st century, it would just be a bit less electrified :)

Let's see...without science, we'd still be back in the 17th Century, right?

Will wrote: "Glalleo and Newton--the dawn of modern science. Where would we be without gravity?

Up in the sky somewhere... :P

Thanks, Susanna! I added it to my wish list. Looks interesting.

Good point, Jim. Glalleo and Newton--the dawn of modern science. Where would we be without gravity? How did we manage before we had it? There is a book titled something like "The Man Who Invented Gravity". I'll look it up.

(later)

Boy, was I off. I found the book in my shelf and it is "Isaac Newton: The Scientist Who Changed Everything".

YEs, they are very different characters - but even the differences between James II and Charles II were vast!!

I read an interesting book a few years ago about that, Jim - think it was called Ingenious Pursuits Building the Scientific Revolution, by Lisa Jardine. Some very cool illustrations.

I don't recall any one mentioning how important the science of the 17th century was. Galileo & Newton were two of the pioneers. The telescope, gravity, calculus. Locke, too.

Barbarossa wrote: "Maphead wrote: "Barbarossa wrote: "Defining events?
Local events: Union of the Crowns; Plantation Of Ulster; Flight Of The Earls. All having repercussions to this day in Northern Ireland. At the o..."
Maphead, may I ask how long it took you? I've been reading about two chapters a week and I wonder if I'll ever finish it!

Maphead wrote: "Barbarossa wrote: "Defining events?
Local events: Union of the Crowns; Plantation Of Ulster; Flight Of The Earls. All having repercussions to this day in Northern Ireland. At the other end of the c..."

Oh...just read the thread from the start to see if I missed anything...seems I replied to your reply...but I think your reply was meant for Andrea as her post (after mine) says she's reading Durant.
Sorry...carry on folks.

Maphead wrote: "Barbarossa wrote: "Defining events?
Local events: Union of the Crowns; Plantation Of Ulster; Flight Of The Earls. All having repercussions to this day in Northern Ireland. At the other end of the c..."

Not read Will Durant (though I'll be having a look now, thanks), do have The Reformation in a big pile of books that I'm due to get round to soon. The events I mentioned all have a real effect to this day as they mean busier A+E departments in Glasgow after an Old Firm game...and all the recent unpleasantness in Northern Ireland/Ulster. Though like most Hx used to justify modern events there is a huge amount of oversimplification on both sides.

Barbarossa wrote: "Defining events?
Local events: Union of the Crowns; Plantation Of Ulster; Flight Of The Earls. All having repercussions to this day in Northern Ireland. At the other end of the century: the failur..."

Glad you are reading Durant's Reformation. I read it several years ago and loved it.

when it comes to Louis XIV
I think of sex...

He had so many mistresses and countless kids,
same for his cousin Charles II

well, actually when it comes to furniture styles, I like Louis XVI, Louis XIV is too clunky and inelegant, hard to get comfortable in Louis XIV furniture....

Manuel wrote: "When it comes to the 1600's
the person that stands out the most in my mind's eye is Louis XIV.i>

Because he is associated with a furniture style?

Good point Susana, regarding Charles' Medici looks.
I never realized it. Yep, his grandmother was a Marie de Medici.

You always here of England and France being at war with each other, so to me its always surprising their ruling families ever got this close and friendly.

of course
it turned out Charles II was a secret Catholic, as opposed to his brother James, who was "out of the closet" regarding Catholisism.

Yup. And Charles II always looks like a Medici prince to me; physically he looked very different from his first cousin, Louis XIV.

When it comes to the 1600's
the person that stands out the most in my mind's eye is Louis XIV.

Hard to believe he and Charles II and James II were first cousins.

Andrea wrote: "1621, first black slaves brought into an English colony, in North America I think?"

Virginia, 1619.

Will wrote: "I'm guessing that event, Susanna, probably affected India, Britain and the world as much as anything as it played out in history and the development of world events. "

Yep, I think it is an event with massively important ties to what would happen later.

One: It turned out I wasn't so dumb in my confusion of, "Is Anglican Church Protestant?" Thanks.

Two: Who'd have thought it was this confusing and the answer this obscure?

"Ivory's Ghosts" may be my next book purchase; thanks. They're still killing elephants for ivory. I have to admit: Long ago I was quite fascinated with ivory and bought some, and some ebony. I regret my purchases of ivory.

Coyle wrote: "Barbarossa wrote: "The big point of doctrine that splits Catholics and Protestants is the idea of the pope as head of the church, and all that that entails. After that split all the branches of Pro..."

Don't know if you can call the division of RC/OE a split. Donation of Constantine and all that...
It was used to justify the supremacy of the Roman patriarch over the others (Constantinople; Jerusalem; Antioch; Alexandria), who became the Pope. Prior to that they existed fairly independantly.
The donation was a forgery.
Protestantism, as far as I'm aware, broke away from RC and no other form of christianity. And as you say, "Luther's (and Zwingli's and Cranmer's) break with the pope in terms of authority doesn't come until after the pope refuses to reform on this doctrine", but as he refused to bend to the protesters demands for reform the break is there. If they had not denied the authority of the pope then those that followed them would still have been prone to church (RC) sanctions (excommunication and such), Protestant nobles would have had great difficulty justifying land and tax seizures from the church etc.
OK, maybe I'm oversimplifying, but then Protestant as a definition is fairly vague and broad.

Barbarossa wrote: "The big point of doctrine that splits Catholics and Protestants is the idea of the pope as head of the church, and all that that entails. After that split all the branches of Protestantism vary in other ways, but this is the main defining point."

Actually, that's the Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox split. The big point of doctrine that splits Protestants from Catholics is the doctrine of justification. Protestants believe that one is made right with God by faith alone, while Catholics believe that one is made right with God by faith and love. Luther's (and Zwingli's and Cranmer's) break with the pope in terms of authority doesn't come until after the pope refuses to reform on this doctrine.

A new book I read recently, which really deals more with 19th century but is so well-written and entertaining I have to plug it: "Ivory's Ghosts" by John Frederick Walker, deals with the connection between Ivory and slavery.

A bit off the subject, but I spent a lot of time, years ago, on the Escravos River in Nigeria. "Escravos" is Portuguese for "Slaves." When they dredged the river there were thousands of hand-blown glass gin bottles thrown up on the banks. The slave traders would drink gin and bargain for slaves and throw the bottles into the river, apparently. Authorities assured us the gin was drank while trading; not as trade items. The imperfections and impressions in the bottles were interesting.

1621, first black slaves brought into an English colony, in North America I think? All along the East and South African coast, the Dutch, Portuguese, British and Omanis were duking it out over control of trade routes for slaves and ivory and control of sea lanes. All this was important in determining future directions, but maybe not in terms of a few straightforward, identifiable events.

I'm guessing that event, Susanna, probably affected India, Britain and the world as much as anything as it played out in history and the development of world events.

I would say in Asia, the Manchu conquest of China is a very big deal.

In India, this is the great period of the Mughal dynasty. It was Jahangir who first let in the British East India Company to trade in India, in 1615.

Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

Russia was expanding across Siberia and into Asia.

Ottoman Empire cntrolled most of the Middle East and Turkey.

Mancurians conquered the Ming dynasty and the Qing Dynasty was established in China.

Slave trade in Africa and colonization of South Africa; probably quite important in the development of world history.

The defining events for me are fairly local (post 7 above), and most others mentioned are Western in focus.
Anyone have any non-Western big events?
Africa? Asia? Russia?

Coyle wrote: "Will's question: What event defined the 17th century?
As all the posts show, there's lots of important stuff going on. But it seems that one major event's been left out (or maybe I just missed it..."

During the 17th Cent. the colonisation of the Americas wasn't that huge a deal. Well, from a general point of view. In hindsight it was huge yes, but at the time not so much. The sugar and spice islands in the Caribean and Indian Oceans were many times more important than the thin strip of land down the Eastern seaboard.
The gold routes to the Southern Americas did fund much of the European wars at the time though.

Coyle wrote: "And as far as whether or not Anglicans are Protestant, as I understand it there are three kinds of Anglicans:
-Evangelical, who fall nearest the "Reformed" branch of Protestantism, who are undenia..."

The big point of doctrine that splits Catholics and Protestants is the idea of the pope as head of the church, and all that that entails. After that split all the branches of Protestantism vary in other ways, but this is the main defining point.

And as far as whether or not Anglicans are Protestant, as I understand it there are three kinds of Anglicans:
-Evangelical, who fall nearest the "Reformed" branch of Protestantism, who are undeniably Protestant (as George Whitfield, John Newton, Bishop Ryle and Philip Jenson would all argue).
-Latitudinarian, who are the liberal branch of the Anglican church. They're certainly not Catholic, but I'm not sure I'd call them "Protestant" either. It's like trying to classify a unitarian- where do you put someone who just believes in everything?
-Tractarian, Anglicans who believe in a loose transubstantian, salvation by faith and love, the seven sacraments, and other beliefs encouraged by Cardinal Newman (before he jumped the fence). Catholics of a more traditional bent would argue that they're not Catholic (obviously, because they're Anglican), but more Vatican II-ish Catholics are happy to include them in the tradition along with other non-Roman Catholic rites (like the Greek Orthodox).

At least, that's how my friend at Catholic University explained it.

Will's question: What event defined the 17th century?
As all the posts show, there's lots of important stuff going on. But it seems that one major event's been left out (or maybe I just missed it when I skimmed over the posts): the colonization of America. Certainly long-term that's had as much impact as the English Civil War, the Treaty of Westphalia, etc (though it's obviously not unrelated to these things).

Andrea wrote: "Jim, how dare you imply that you are too young to remember the Dutch Elm disease? Are you not older than I am? (0r maybe you're not?) I remember my dad, an admitted tree hugger, mourning each of ..."

I was born in NY & it had done its damage before I knew them. It moved west before I did. I still have quite a few Elms in my woods, although I've lost a couple in the past years. Drought hurt them & borers got to them.

Yeah, the Emerald Ash Borer is headed my way. Supposedly it hasn't crossed the Ohio yet, but any time now. We have a LOT of White & Blue Ash trees, too. Yuck.

----- I just saw this is the wrong topic. Sorry.