Poll
Question:
dinka dunka durka doo
Option 1: England
votes: 17
Option 2: France
votes: 18
Option 3: Heideger Jaronische Reich
votes: 4
I was thinking about a who root for poll on the War of the Roses, but at this point I can't see anyone voting for the Yorkists.
Toffish infighting. :bowler:
:bowler: Viva Britannia
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2FTravel%2FleadAssets%2F32%2F11%2Fjoanarc2_3211109a-large.jpg&hash=451f6644677ec200b575c74a9ffa6fe1222656f3)
Not France. Have you seen that country?
England. Frenchies suck.
I don't particularly root for either side.
I do like Henry V and Joan of Arc.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 27, 2016, 07:24:57 PM
I was thinking about a who root for poll on the War of the Roses, but at this point I can't see anyone voting for the Yorkists.
Uh, me. Lancaster sucks.
The war's actual outcome was about as positive for future development as we could have hoped for, so that's what i "root for." A long-term English crown presence in France would have delayed or even stopped the development of the system of common law and devolved powers that made England (and later, Britain) the cockpit of democracy, liberalism, and market capitalism. A longer stay on the continent would have reinforced absolutism and sucked the economy dry of money to pay for wars.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 27, 2016, 08:48:01 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 27, 2016, 07:24:57 PM
I was thinking about a who root for poll on the War of the Roses, but at this point I can't see anyone voting for the Yorkists.
Uh, me. Lancaster sucks.
Seriously. Who the hell would support the Lancaster or Tudor factions? York is the only legitimate option and legitimate claim. :bowler:
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on August 27, 2016, 08:49:41 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 27, 2016, 08:48:01 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 27, 2016, 07:24:57 PM
I was thinking about a who root for poll on the War of the Roses, but at this point I can't see anyone voting for the Yorkists.
Uh, me. Lancaster sucks.
Seriously. Who the hell would support the Lancaster or Tudor factions? York is the only legitimate option and legitimate claim. :bowler:
I might name my next kid "Rutland".
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on August 27, 2016, 08:49:41 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 27, 2016, 08:48:01 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 27, 2016, 07:24:57 PM
I was thinking about a who root for poll on the War of the Roses, but at this point I can't see anyone voting for the Yorkists.
Uh, me. Lancaster sucks.
Seriously. Who the hell would support the Lancaster or Tudor factions? York is the only legitimate option and legitimate claim. :bowler:
"Right of conquest" is the basis for the York claim to the throne, so it is no more legitimate than Lancaster or Tudor. In fact, Henry VII is probably more legitimate than the others because he claimed to be the conqueror himself, not the watered-down descendant of a conqueror.
Quote from: grumbler on August 27, 2016, 09:06:03 PM
"Right of conquest" is the basis for the York claim to the throne, so it is no more legitimate than Lancaster or Tudor. In fact, Henry VII is probably more legitimate than the others because he claimed to be the conqueror himself, not the watered-down descendant of a conqueror.
Meh. He only managed that as there weren't any other major claimants left over to oppose him and it allowed him to declare any supporter of Richard III as a traitor and attain them. He initially drew on his ties to the Plantagenet Dynasty as his claim prior to Bosworth and married Elizabeth of York to firm up the familial claim and lineage aspect. Edward could have claimed his rule via "Right of Conquest", but the better and more respectable route was via lineage at the point in time.
Quote from: grumbler on August 27, 2016, 08:49:15 PM
The war's actual outcome was about as positive for future development as we could have hoped for, so that's what i "root for." A long-term English crown presence in France would have delayed or even stopped the development of the system of common law and devolved powers that made England (and later, Britain) the cockpit of democracy, liberalism, and market capitalism. A longer stay on the continent would have reinforced absolutism and sucked the economy dry of money to pay for wars.
This option for the poll at hand.
Quote from: garbon on August 27, 2016, 07:50:14 PM
Not France. Have you seen that country?
Yeah it is amazing :hmm:
Or at least it was 16 or so years ago.
France of course. Even though the English aggression that triggered the war set up the system that allowed the French King to tax without having to call the Estates which I consider a rather unfortunate development. It is hard to imagine a world where the war was not fought though so who knows how things might have developed? There probably might not even be a France today with how decentralized it was at the time. Who knows?
:frog:
France. England had no just cause, and in any case it was mistake for it to be so involved in the continent.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 27, 2016, 07:24:57 PM
I was thinking about a who root for poll on the War of the Roses, but at this point I can't see anyone voting for the Yorkists.
WTF dude. Troll some other board.
Perfidious Albion
France does suck.
But "english" victory in the 100yw means yet more centuries under the french heel.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa5.files.biography.com%2Fimage%2Fupload%2Fc_fit%2Ccs_srgb%2Cdpr_1.0%2Ch_1200%2Cq_80%2Cw_1200%2FMTE5NDg0MDU1MDExOTUyMTQz.jpg&hash=f7f1e4b96f80097db85ab3f4428d027d4faf36cb)
Obvs.
Early in the conflict a quick and decisive "English" victory means England gets Frenchified in the long run, The Tyr horror scenario. :P After all, French, the Anglo-Norman variety, was most used at the court. The Pleading in English Act came in 1362, with English becoming the official language of government later on.
Joan of Arc is like the worst. Obvs.
<_<
Joan of Arc rocks. If you can get Gilles de Rais to follow you, you can get anyone.
Quote from: grumbler on August 27, 2016, 08:49:15 PM
The war's actual outcome was about as positive for future development as we could have hoped for, so that's what i "root for." A long-term English crown presence in France would have delayed or even stopped the development of the system of common law and devolved powers that made England (and later, Britain) the cockpit of democracy, liberalism, and market capitalism. A longer stay on the continent would have reinforced absolutism and sucked the economy dry of money to pay for wars.
This relies on the tautology that things have unfolded the way they did because they unfolded the way they did. "Absolutist" France did not develop in a linear fashion.
Whoever wins, we lose scenario for me.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 28, 2016, 12:51:33 PM
This relies on the tautology that things have unfolded the way they did because they unfolded the way they did. "Absolutist" France did not develop in a linear fashion.
Yeah France was much less centralized and much less absolutist than England. After all it was French nobles and their traditions of autonomy that led to Magna Carta anyway. Simon de Montfort anybody?
It was the Hundred Years War that changed that.
Quote from: garbon on August 28, 2016, 10:42:23 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 28, 2016, 08:39:50 AM
<_<
I'm a crazed girl who preys on desperate men.
Any teenage peasant girl in the Middle Ages who manages to prey on full grown noblemen is pretty awesome in my book.
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2016, 01:36:36 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 28, 2016, 10:42:23 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 28, 2016, 08:39:50 AM
<_<
I'm a crazed girl who preys on desperate men.
Any teenage peasant girl in the Middle Ages who manages to prey on full grown noblemen is pretty awesome in my book.
Okay fan of teen dystopia fiction.
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2016, 01:34:43 PM
It was the Hundred Years War that changed that.
:huh: no it wasn't. England, and then Britain, would remain much ore centralized than France at least until the Revolution, if not after that - if, centralization is measured by the number of intermediate bodies in a polity. As for the role of the Estates General, ascribing their decline in influence to the Hundred Years War is either teleological, or simply believing the propaganda of the Bourbon kings (which a form of Wigghish history of France usually does). The Wars of Religion did much more to establish the legitimacy of a strong, absolute ruler than the Hundred Years War, which actually reinforced the Estates (culminating in the 1484 Estates) - and even this seems quite oversimplifying, considering the difficulties of summarizing a series of almost ordinary conflicts between The crowns of France and England as a single war.
It gave the French King a series of permanent taxes. That was a major blow to regional power sources.
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2016, 02:09:04 PM
It gave the French King a series of permanent taxes. That was a major blow to regional power sources.
Not at all. It enabled regional power sources, who succeeded in making themselves the necessary interlocutor for raising, and collecting them. It is the birth of Parlements in France, and organized estates throughout the kingdom.
Quote from: garbon on August 28, 2016, 01:57:49 PM
Okay fan of teen dystopia fiction.
:lol:
Joan of Arc: Maiden France and
Joan of Arc, Part II: Fire Come Pray With Me from the
Century War Chronicles novel series
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 28, 2016, 12:51:33 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 27, 2016, 08:49:15 PM
The war's actual outcome was about as positive for future development as we could have hoped for, so that's what i "root for." A long-term English crown presence in France would have delayed or even stopped the development of the system of common law and devolved powers that made England (and later, Britain) the cockpit of democracy, liberalism, and market capitalism. A longer stay on the continent would have reinforced absolutism and sucked the economy dry of money to pay for wars.
This relies on the tautology that things have unfolded the way they did because they unfolded the way they did. "Absolutist" France did not develop in a linear fashion.
No, it doesn't rely on a tautology, but, instead of just saying that it does, why don't you make an actual argument that will add to the discussion? You know more about this period than most, I'd say.
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2016, 01:34:43 PM
Yeah France was much less centralized and much less absolutist than England. After all it was French nobles and their traditions of autonomy that led to Magna Carta anyway. Simon de Montfort anybody?
It was the Hundred Years War that changed that.
An English victory in the Hundred Years' War would have reinforced the English trend towards absolutism, not weakened it. The trend towards centralized tax collection was spurred by the need to pay for the war. An English "victory" would have guaranteed another century of on-and-off war, IMO.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 28, 2016, 02:07:01 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2016, 01:34:43 PM
It was the Hundred Years War that changed that.
:huh: no it wasn't. England, and then Britain, would remain much ore centralized than France at least until the Revolution, if not after that - if, centralization is measured by the number of intermediate bodies in a polity. As for the role of the Estates General, ascribing their decline in influence to the Hundred Years War is either teleological, or simply believing the propaganda of the Bourbon kings (which a form of Wigghish history of France usually does). The Wars of Religion did much more to establish the legitimacy of a strong, absolute ruler than the Hundred Years War, which actually reinforced the Estates (culminating in the 1484 Estates) - and even this seems quite oversimplifying, considering the difficulties of summarizing a series of almost ordinary conflicts between The crowns of France and England as a single war.
I was hoping you would comment on this thread :)
Having an educated view by someone who actually knows this area is a nice change.
btw not a comment aimed at Valmy :)
QuoteIt enabled regional power sources, who succeeded in making themselves the necessary interlocutor for raising, and collecting them. It is the birth of Parlements in France, and organized estates throughout the kingdom.
Well sure. To the extent France actually was a centralized absolutist monarchy it still had those qualities. But that is different from the provinces being basically independent like what had gone one before.
I still have a hard time viewing permanent taxation rights by the central government being a force FOR regional power.
Quote from: grumbler on August 28, 2016, 02:51:45 PM
An English victory in the Hundred Years' War would have reinforced the English trend towards absolutism, not weakened it. The trend towards centralized tax collection was spurred by the need to pay for the war. An English "victory" would have guaranteed another century of on-and-off war, IMO.
I think I was just set to argue that connection to the Continent did not necessarily mean absolutism as I don't think that was really a trend on the continent at the time. I also do not think there was a strong trend towards absolutism going on in England at the time. The Parliament kept a pretty firm grasp on the purse strings.
But, you know, maybe I am wrong about that.
I don't see how anyone could make the argument that if you change the outcome of a medieval war it would result in a definite political climate 500 years later. That seems like a long time to extrapolate.
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2016, 03:05:23 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 28, 2016, 02:51:45 PM
An English victory in the Hundred Years' War would have reinforced the English trend towards absolutism, not weakened it. The trend towards centralized tax collection was spurred by the need to pay for the war. An English "victory" would have guaranteed another century of on-and-off war, IMO.
I think I was just set to argue that connection to the Continent did not necessarily mean absolutism as I don't think that was really a trend on the continent at the time. I also do not think there was a strong trend towards absolutism going on in England at the time. The Parliament kept a pretty firm grasp on the purse strings.
But, you know, maybe I am wrong about that.
I'm not sure about it just because it's difficult to read back from absolutism which is really a later concept. I similarly don't think it's terribly easy to look back and say democracy was helped or not by it.
What is true which may have later led to more democratic/absolutist institutions is that England through the Hundred Years War (but in many ways before then too) managed to balance feudal institutions with a centralised state. So, my understanding is, it was rare elsewhere in Europe for the members of Parliaments to also be the local enforcement officers as was the case in England where MPS were routinely justices of the peace or sheriffs in their home area.
Again I may be wrong but my understanding is that England was unusual in that respect. The people who voted for laws were also the ones who ensured they were then followed. So local notables were tied into an effective centralised body rather than just one that tended to guard local privileges in exchange for subsidies (though that was part of it).
I believe, though I could be wrong again, that France had more of a separation of power and enforcement which did mean the monarchy had to rely on people other than the estates.
I'm sure Oex knows more though, only read one book on the (beginning of) the Hundreds Year War and found it all a bit confusing for me :lol: :blush:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2016, 02:42:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 28, 2016, 01:57:49 PM
Okay fan of teen dystopia fiction.
:lol:
Joan of Arc: Maiden France and Joan of Arc, Part II: Fire Come Pray With Me from the Century War Chronicles novel series
:thumbsup:
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 28, 2016, 04:08:04 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2016, 03:05:23 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 28, 2016, 02:51:45 PM
An English victory in the Hundred Years' War would have reinforced the English trend towards absolutism, not weakened it. The trend towards centralized tax collection was spurred by the need to pay for the war. An English "victory" would have guaranteed another century of on-and-off war, IMO.
I think I was just set to argue that connection to the Continent did not necessarily mean absolutism as I don't think that was really a trend on the continent at the time. I also do not think there was a strong trend towards absolutism going on in England at the time. The Parliament kept a pretty firm grasp on the purse strings.
But, you know, maybe I am wrong about that.
I'm not sure about it just because it's difficult to read back from absolutism which is really a later concept. I similarly don't think it's terribly easy to look back and say democracy was helped or not by it.
What is true which may have later led to more democratic/absolutist institutions is that England through the Hundred Years War (but in many ways before then too) managed to balance feudal institutions with a centralised state. So, my understanding is, it was rare elsewhere in Europe for the members of Parliaments to also be the local enforcement officers as was the case in England where MPS were routinely justices of the peace or sheriffs in their home area.
Again I may be wrong but my understanding is that England was unusual in that respect. The people who voted for laws were also the ones who ensured they were then followed. So local notables were tied into an effective centralised body rather than just one that tended to guard local privileges in exchange for subsidies (though that was part of it).
I believe, though I could be wrong again, that France had more of a separation of power and enforcement which did mean the monarchy had to rely on people other than the estates.
I'm sure Oex knows more though, only read one book on the (beginning of) the Hundreds Year War and found it all a bit confusing for me :lol: :blush:
I think the flaw in the argument that British Parliamentary traditions led directly to democratic principles we know today is that the British Parliament was really just a contest between the King on the on hand and local elites on the other. It took the French to form the beginnings of a democracy we would more readily recognize. Without the French experience modern democracy could have been significantly delayed.
Put another way, Magna Carta is the foundational myth of democracy in the English speaking world. But if one actually reads it, there is very little to do with democracy and everything to do with the Barons' ability to rule their own lands as arbitrarily as they wish.
Quote from: garbon on August 28, 2016, 01:57:49 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2016, 01:36:36 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 28, 2016, 10:42:23 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 28, 2016, 08:39:50 AM
<_<
I'm a crazed girl who preys on desperate men.
Any teenage peasant girl in the Middle Ages who manages to prey on full grown noblemen is pretty awesome in my book.
Okay fan of teen dystopia fiction.
Better than the Seige-y fanfiction route I was afraid that might go.
,"And Joan the Hot teen girl threw the body of Englishmen in the wells to poison their water supply. After having a prayer in name of God the Father and the Singularity she kissed her king an older veteran of actions against the English."
Quote from: garbon on August 27, 2016, 07:50:14 PM
Not France. Have you seen that country?
Yes. There's a lot more bikinis than in England.
I vote France.
And, just as in the War, in this poll an early lead for England over France disappears.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2016, 05:31:57 PM
Put another way, Magna Carta is the foundational myth of democracy in the English speaking world. But if one actually reads it, there is very little to do with democracy and everything to do with the Barons' ability to rule their own lands as arbitrarily as they wish.
Which was a very French type of ideal. But rights for Nobles was a necessary first step. I think the Magna Carta deserves its place in history.
I mean Magna Carta's an important document in terms of our development of democracy not because of what's in it but because of its symbolic value which has been appealed to throughout history by far more radical movements, in favour of far more expansive rights: Coke, the Levellers, Wilkes, the Chartists, the American Revolutionaries, right down to Occupy outside St Paul's.
But it does seem to have a particular resonance for Americans for some reason, partly for the same plus some differences no doubt. For example the monument to it at Runnymede was paid for by the American Bar Association and in the recent 800th anniversary they paid for a lot of events around Magna Carta too (and we've sent one of the surviving copies for exhibition in Washington in 1976 and on the 800th anniversary).
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 29, 2016, 11:39:45 AM
But it does seem to have a particular resonance for Americans for some reason,
Does it? Huh. I only remember it being discussed in the context of English history.
Quote from: Valmy on August 29, 2016, 11:41:11 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 29, 2016, 11:39:45 AM
But it does seem to have a particular resonance for Americans for some reason,
Does it? Huh. I only remember it being discussed in the context of English history.
Yeah. As I say there's barely a memorial event that isn't significantly funded or sponsored by the ABA. You're as likely to see articles by say John Roberts on it as you are the Master of the Rolls.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 29, 2016, 11:48:31 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 29, 2016, 11:41:11 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 29, 2016, 11:39:45 AM
But it does seem to have a particular resonance for Americans for some reason,
Does it? Huh. I only remember it being discussed in the context of English history.
Yeah. As I say there's barely a memorial event that isn't significantly funded or sponsored by the ABA. You're as likely to see articles by say John Roberts on it as you are the Master of the Rolls.
Ah ok. A Law nerd type deal.
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2016, 03:00:02 PM
Well sure. To the extent France actually was a centralized absolutist monarchy it still had those qualities. But that is different from the provinces being basically independent like what had gone one before.
France was never a centralized absolutist monarchy, if by that we assume something akin to a kind of ideal-type totalitarian regime where decisions taken by one person are uniformly applied and executed everywhere. As I said, if we measure centralization by the amount of intermediary bodies that exist between, say, the Crown and the village, England is *a lot more* centralized than France ever will be before the Revolution.
What you measure as provinces being independent only makes sense if we assume that 1) provinces exist, as a political entity and 2) the king's authority there is somehow thwarted. This is certainly the reading that 16th century thinkers of the absolutist monarchy will make of the middle ages; the fact that they, historically, "won" within kingly circles means that it has been assumed to be the actual historical development: kings slowly regaining what they had lost.
But that was anachronistic, and politically motivated in the 16th century. Medieval forms of power did not entail unquestioned obedience, the concept of "central authority" vs "local authority", or standardization of governing practices. The form of the king's authority in the middle ages takes the form of injunctions being dispatched to towns, bishops, important nobles, etc. Provinces have very little existence in this scheme of power. To be brief: the forms of government developed at court, the attempts at channeling more money into the royal treasury are also in use in towns, and bishoprics. It is precisely at that time that Provinces gain "materiality" so to speak. They become powerful institutions in their own right, that go above town and bishopric and nobles alone. They organize their own taxation, collect a lot more money, for their own purposes. The emergence of the Estates, *during* the Hundred Years War, as well as of the Parlements, shows that the kings are keen to redirect that capacity to the royal treasury, and hoping to streamline negotiations with a narrower set of actors. And they often fail, and are often thwarted by these growing institutions: indeed, the so-called "permanent taxes" are only called thus because they succeeded in persisting - but they were actually put to vote every Estates General during the 13th and 14th century. Which means that the Estates General's role became *stronger* as time passes, displacing previous modes of negotiation, but energizing the new provincial organizations. The heyday of provinces is truly the 16th century: by that time, provinces can potentially bring in so much revenue, can offer so many occasions of patronage, are latticed by such dense political networks that they become high stake political issues.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 28, 2016, 04:08:04 PM
I think I was just set to argue that connection to the Continent did not necessarily mean absolutism as I don't think that was really a trend on the continent at the time. I also do not think there was a strong trend towards absolutism going on in England at the time. The Parliament kept a pretty firm grasp on the purse strings.
But, you know, maybe I am wrong about that.
It's actually quite difficult to separate foundational myths from historical analysis when one wants to compare England and the Continent. A lot of the comparisons are made almost casually, sometimes taking for a fact what is little more than preconceived notions understood as "common knowledge". A a lot of the historiography about absolutism reads it backward, from the apex of Louis XIV, and there is a strong, and vigorous tradition of English propaganda, esp. during the Glorious Revolution, that actually made the sort of historical argument we read in this thread, precisely to mark the difference between Evil France, enemy of Liberty, and proponent of Tyrannical Government, and Awesome England, which cherishes and preserves Liberty. In the 1990s, Europe funded a lot of comparative historiographical projects on "state-formation", but such projects have since receded with the decline of Europe as a political project.
I think the major distinction between France and England, which should bear more scrutiny, is the divide between the Parlement and the Estates; in England, Parliament played both roles, which was helped by the fact that all of the kingdom was reputed to be under the same law, whereas in France, you needed to have a number of regional Parlements to sit as court to all the various customs. In the Estates, the recruitment (i.e., the election) was indeed mostly made up of royal agents of all kinds, or rather, local notables who succeeded in gaining access to royal roles - provost, baillifs, sergeant at arms - but you can also find cobblers, carpenters, winemakers in the Estates of the 13th and 14th century. The Parlements, limited to their role as court, became peopled with jurists first and foremost.
Quote from: Archy on August 29, 2016, 12:55:22 AM
,"And Joan the Hot teen girl threw the body of Englishmen in the wells to poison their water supply. After having a prayer in name of God the Father and the Singularity she kissed her king an older veteran of actions against the English."
HOTT