Sir Walter Ralegh on war and faith

Gaspard de Coligny

It is a little-known fact about Ralegh that, when he was 14 or so, he went to fight for the Hugenot cause in the French Wars of Religion as part of a small group of West Country men under the leadership of his cousin, Henry Champernowne. Insofar as we might tend to perceive Ralegh as something of a protestant hero in the struggle against imperial Spain, this isn’t terribly surprising – despite his extreme youth. We have a ready 20th-century analogy for such idealism in the form of the international brigades who fought in the Spanish Civil War.

But whatever Ralegh’s motivation in enlisting, the experience taught him a deep and abiding cynicism. Wars fought under the banner of religion were, he concluded, merely the continuation of other struggles for political power.

History doth plainly tell us, that that furious war (which broke out in France) in the reign of Francis II, and which occasioned the most barbarous murders, devastations, and such other calamities, (which are the common products of civil commotions, and by continuing near forty years had reduced France to the last misery,) was begun and carried on by some few great men of ambitious and turbulent spirits, deluding the people with the cloak and mask only of religion, to gain their assistance to what they did more especially aim at. It is plain the admiral Coligny advised the prince of Condé to side with the Huguenots, not only out of love to their persuasion, but to gain a party, and be made thereby the stronger; neither can any man think that the papists, out of the principle of the Christian religion, which enjoins us to be meek and charitable, did in few days’ space cut the throats of near thirty thousand protestants in France, many of whom were men of great fame and quality, but out of fear of their numbers and power: these being removed, they made sure of grasping to themselves all rule and dominion.

I find myself returning to Ralegh’s phrase ‘deluding the people with the cloak and mask only of religion’ when I read about today’s militant religious movements – whether Christian fundamentalists, Jewish settlers or Islamist radicals – or a theocratic state like Iran; and I wonder if it wouldn’t be more a productive political response simply to ignore the religious codes in which they couch their views of the world. They are more or less coherent social groups – some of them transnational – reaching out for dominion. Faith is their uniform; it is not their cause. To the extent we might consider such people our enemies, their religion isn’t the thing we are fighting; it is a distraction from the real battles for power.

And I worry that the same might also be said of those whose faith is placed in liberalism, and particularly in its more muscular expressions. I worry, of course, because I’m probably one of them.

NOTE: If you are interested in my other posts on Ralegh, they are here, here, here, here, here, here and here.


  1. […] Ralegh waited until Elizabeth was long dead before he committed his thoughts on her father to paper. This brutal analysis of Henry VIII’s moral and political shortcomings comes from the Preface to Ralegh’s History of the World,written during his imprisonment in the Tower of London and published in 1614. If all the pictures and patterns of a merciless prince were lost in the world, they might all again be painted to the life out of the story of this king. For how many servants did he advance in haste (but for what virtue no man could suspect), and with the change of his fancy ruined again; no man knowing for what offence! To how many others of more desert gave he abundant flowers from whence to gather honey, and in the end of harvest burnt them in the hive! How many wives did he cut off and cast off, as his fancy and affection changed! How many princes of the blood (whereof some of them for age could hardly crawl towards the block), with a world of others of all degrees (of whom our common chronicles have kept the account), did he execute! Yea, in his very deathbed, and when he was at the point to have given his account to God for the abundance of blood already spilt, he imprisoned the Duke of Norfolk the father, and executed the Earl of Surrey the son; the one, whose deservings he knew not how to value, having never omitted anything that concerned his own honour and the king’s service; the other, never having committed anything worthy of his least displeasure: the one exceeding valiant and advised; the other no less valiant than learned, and of excellent hope. But besides the sorrows which he heaped upon the fatherless and widows at home, and besides the vain enterprises abroad, wherein it is thought that he consumed more treasure than all our victorious kings did in their several conquests; what causeless and cruel wars did he make upon his own nephew King James the Fifth! What laws and wills did he devise, to establish this kingdom in his own issues! using his sharpest weapons to cut off and cut down those branches, which sprang from the same root that himself did. And in the end (notwithstanding these his so many irreligious provisions) it pleased God to take away all his own, without increase; though, for themselves in their several kinds, all princes of eminent virtue. Rate this: Share this:TwitterFacebookPrintEmailLinkedInStumbleUponDiggRedditTumblrPinterestLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. Filed under Politics, Sir Walter Ralegh, The Favourite ← Simon Forman fantasises about Elizabeth I Sir Walter Ralegh on war and faith → […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.