@AskingQuestionsAllTheTime
the UK - a country which has never seen a successful revolution or rebellion since 1066
It could be argued that the Civil War was successful in that the people rebelling against the King did win the war; and they did cut Charles Stuart's head off to make their point.
That we subsequently reverted to having (carefully controlled) monarchs with greatly reduced powers doesn't really negate the result of that war.
If it could be argued, then it could be argued
against. And that's my view.
Even the most cursory of glances at the civil war tells you that 1660 was basically 1649 plus 11 years. Or, in other words, nothing really changed. It was a bunch of posh boys in charge before. It was after. It didn't affect the rights or roles of the common man one iota. They gained nothing and lost a lot.
So even by the standards of the day the civil war was really just another spat between those with power. It most certainly was not a US style rebellion, or a French style revolution. It didn't even change the ruling house FFS.
So I repeat my view. England has never had a successful rebellion or revolt in Britain. Something you can see in the fact FOR THE LAST 1,000 YEARS, THE SAME FAMILIES HAVE OWNED MOST OF ENGLAND. A fact which I believe explains the fascination that would-be dynasty founders through the ages have found irresistible in sending their offspring to learn the secrets at English Public School.
Why would you not want to learn how a small country has managed to survive 400 years of internecine dynastic fighting, plus disease, plus religious upheaval, plus regicide, plus 300 years Empire building, plus two world conflicts with it's landed gentry fairly untouched ????
When people talk of England "punching above it's weight" that's what they're really referring to.