Feudalism

[Paul J Gans]

Folks interested in the development of the anti-feudalism point
of view might wish to check the following:

http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic1350026.files/Brown-Tyranny-of-a-Construct.pdf

http://jla.oxfordjournals.org/content/7/2/251.full

http://www.academia.edu/7972204/The_Construct_of_Feudalism_A_War_with_the_Tyrant_

http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/source/reynolds-2%20reviews.asp

That last one is two long reviews of the subject and may be tough going
for some.

One more thing: history, like physics, is a moving subject. What was
accepted as true yesterday is often suspect today. And both yesterday
and today will be changed by the views of tomorrow. History moves
forward, its understanding changes and improves with time.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Tiglath]

On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 3:43:38 PM UTC-4, Paul J Gans wrote:
> Folks interested in the development of the anti-feudalism point
> of view might wish to check the following:
>
> http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic1350026.files/Brown-Tyranny-of-a-Construct.pdf
>
> http://jla.oxfordjournals.org/content/7/2/251.full
>
> http://www.academia.edu/7972204/The_Construct_of_Feudalism_A_War_with_the_Tyrant_
>
> http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/source/reynolds-2%20reviews.asp
>
> That last one is two long reviews of the subject and may be tough going
> for some.
>
> One more thing: history, like physics, is a moving subject.

Hmmm... more like food science...

What was
> accepted as true yesterday is often suspect today. And both yesterday
> and today will be changed by the views of tomorrow. History moves
> forward, its understanding changes and improves with time.
>
> --
> --- Paul J. Gans

Thank you.

[D. Spencer Hines]

"One more thing: history, like physics, is a moving subject. What was

accepted as true yesterday is often suspect today. And both yesterday
and today will be changed by the views of tomorrow. History moves
forward, its understanding changes and improves with time."
--
--- Paul J. Gans

Fascinating!

'Strod'nry.

And here we all need to be tutored by Pogue J. Gans about History, from a
man who has absolutely zip point zero credentials as a Historian.

Gans is a "Theoretical Chemist" -- retired -- from NYU.

Yet...

We were all so ignorant we had thought that History didn't move forward ----
but was just static or moved backwards.

Hilarious!

What is actually more accurate is that Historians find new sources and gain
new insights and some pan out and some don't.

Remember when some historians were telling us that Jack Kennedy was
assassinated by the CIA or The Mob -- and certainly could not have been
killed by a lone assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald.

That one certainly has not panned out -- with any reputable Historian.
--------------------------------------------------------------

What is closer to the Whole Truth is that academics, in order to be
successful, be promoted, get grants, sell books/textbooks and get lucrative
media and Hollywood contracts have to come up with something NEW, DIFFERENT
and EXCITING -- because the Academic Market will not reward a Historian who
just mines the old sources, is not willing to take some risks with the truth
and who reaffirms the Old Verities, with sparkling, intelligent prose.
Debunkers are rewarded.

It's important to have an Allied Support Group too. This helps to explain
burgeoning fields such as:

African-American Studies
Women's Studies
Gender Studies
LGBT Studies
Asian Studies
Christian Studies
Islamic Studies
Hawaiian Studies
Hindu Studies
Jewish Studies
Labor Studies
Native American Studies

And so forth...

DSH

"A vaincre sans peril, on triomphe sans gloire." -- Pierre Corneille
[1606-1684]

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity."

[Robert Mulain]

DSH wrote:

> Remember when some historians were telling us that Jack Kennedy was
> assassinated by the CIA or The Mob -- and certainly could not have been
> killed by a lone assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald.

It seems Dallas PD are busy once again, looking for snipers!

How strangely predictive?

"Feudlism During the Dark Ages" - discuss.

[Tiglath]

The War on Drugs remains #1 Public Enemy and it causes the most gun violence.

Non-drug-related crime has much more bearable figures.

And then there are all those police homicides, some/many of them appear to be
just murder by abuse of authority. Over 500 this year alone.

If you break down the "self-defense" reason to own guns in America, one important component is race riots. In this country race is a fucking problem,
from top to bottom, from Trump's uncontained contempt for Mexicans, to
police laying it on thick on blacks.

We are always one killing or one unjust verdict away from a riot in town, and then you are going to need more than a handgun, if your house is targeted, because 911 will not work.

I don't understand racism. With all the many reasons to hate people, you go
with color? What sense does that make?

I dislike people mainly for their character and behavior, and that is plenty.

[Paul J Gans]

As I'm sure you've heard by now, there was only one Dallas sniper.

[SolomonW]

I have a question,

Who owns the land, the peasant, the king or the local lord?

Please feel free to quote examples from any society in what we call
medieval society.

Thanking anyone who answers in advance.



Professor Pipe's in his book "Russia Under the Old Regime" considers that
this question was never resolved in Russia.

[Sigurdr Volsung]

In England the monarch is the ultimate allodial owner by law of all the land in the kingdom. All others have been granted use of the land they occupy by tenure. In former times they had to pay for the use of that land by service, subsequently replaced by monetary payment.

This principle has been sent overseas to many former British coloniew.

[Tiglath]

Was it sent by ship, train, or camel? I has not arrived here yet.

[AlexMilman]

On Saturday, July 9, 2016 at 6:24:36 AM UTC-4, SolomonW wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 19:43:37 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans wrote:
>
> > Folks interested in the development of the anti-feudalism point
> > of view might wish to check the following:
> >
> > http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic1350026.files/Brown-Tyranny-of-a-Construct.pdf
> >
> > http://jla.oxfordjournals.org/content/7/2/251.full
> >
> > http://www.academia.edu/7972204/The_Construct_of_Feudalism_A_War_with_the_Tyrant_
> >
> > http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/source/reynolds-2%20reviews.asp
> >
> > That last one is two long reviews of the subject and may be tough going
> > for some.
> >
> > One more thing: history, like physics, is a moving subject. What was
> > accepted as true yesterday is often suspect today. And both yesterday
> > and today will be changed by the views of tomorrow. History moves
> > forward, its understanding changes and improves with time.
>
> I have a question,
>
> Who owns the land, the peasant, the king or the local lord?

Depends on a country and the circumstances: if peasant was personally
free, he could own his land.

>
> Please feel free to quote examples from any society in what we call
> medieval society.
>
> Thanking anyone who answers in advance.
>
>
>
> Professor Pipe's in his book "Russia Under the Old Regime" considers that
> this question was never resolved in Russia.

Taking into an account that pre-revolutionary Russia was not a
medieval state, this statement, even if it was true, does not make
too much sense in a medieval context. Anyway, I have no idea what
was 'unresolved': some lands belonged to the imperial family, some
to the the private owners and some to the communities. Some (like
most of the Siberia) belonged to the state and could be given to the
private owners (industrialists or farmers).

[Paul J Gans]

SolomonW <Solo...@citi.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 19:43:37 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans wrote:

>> Folks interested in the development of the anti-feudalism point
>> of view might wish to check the following:
>>
>> http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic1350026.files/Brown-Tyranny-of-a-Construct.pdf
>>
>> http://jla.oxfordjournals.org/content/7/2/251.full
>>
>> http://www.academia.edu/7972204/The_Construct_of_Feudalism_A_War_with_the_Tyrant_
>>
>> http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/source/reynolds-2%20reviews.asp
>>
>> That last one is two long reviews of the subject and may be tough going
>> for some.
>>
>> One more thing: history, like physics, is a moving subject. What was
>> accepted as true yesterday is often suspect today. And both yesterday
>> and today will be changed by the views of tomorrow. History moves
>> forward, its understanding changes and improves with time.

>I have a question,

>Who owns the land, the peasant, the king or the local lord?

>Please feel free to quote examples from any society in what we call
>medieval society.

>Thanking anyone who answers in advance.

It depends on where you are. Practice differed from place to place.
In England after Hastings, the King asserted ultimate ownership. In
practice it varied greatly. In England there were free men working
land alongside "serfs" who not only asserted "ownership" of this or
that bit of land, but asserted their rights strenuously.

Did cases end up in Court. They sure did. And the decisions varied
from time to time and place to place.

In the US for example, the Government asserts ultimate authority over
land, having the right of eminend domain subject only to the control
of the courts. This does not stop folks from claiming ownership of the
land. This is almost parallel to English practice.

>Professor Pipe's in his book "Russia Under the Old Regime" considers that
>this question was never resolved in Russia.

It was really never resolved anywhere in the rest of Europe either, at
least not in any permanent sense.

[SolomonW]

I am an Australian, and much land is private. The government can take it
under some conditions.

I do know that this would be true in Israel another country under British
law, but it inherited the principally from Turkish law.

[SolomonW]

On Sat, 9 Jul 2016 11:09:40 -0700 (PDT), AlexMilman wrote:

> On Saturday, July 9, 2016 at 6:24:36 AM UTC-4, SolomonW wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 19:43:37 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans wrote:
>>
>>> Folks interested in the development of the anti-feudalism point
>>> of view might wish to check the following:
>>>
>>> http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic1350026.files/Brown-Tyranny-of-a-Construct.pdf
>>>
>>> http://jla.oxfordjournals.org/content/7/2/251.full
>>>
>>> http://www.academia.edu/7972204/The_Construct_of_Feudalism_A_War_with_the_Tyrant_
>>>
>>> http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/source/reynolds-2%20reviews.asp
>>>
>>> That last one is two long reviews of the subject and may be tough going
>>> for some.
>>>
>>> One more thing: history, like physics, is a moving subject. What was
>>> accepted as true yesterday is often suspect today. And both yesterday
>>> and today will be changed by the views of tomorrow. History moves
>>> forward, its understanding changes and improves with time.
>>
>> I have a question,
>>
>> Who owns the land, the peasant, the king or the local lord?
>
> Depends on a country and the circumstances:

Indeed which is why I said (a) below

> if peasant was personally
> free, he could own his land.

Not always


>
>>

(a)

>> Please feel free to quote examples from any society in what we call
>> medieval society.
>>
>> Thanking anyone who answers in advance.
>>
>>
>>
>> Professor Pipe's in his book "Russia Under the Old Regime" considers that
>> this question was never resolved in Russia.
>
> Taking into an account that pre-revolutionary Russia was not a
> medieval state, this statement, even if it was true, does not make
> too much sense in a medieval context.

Mmmmmmmmmmmm

> Anyway, I have no idea what
> was 'unresolved': some lands belonged to the imperial family, some
> to the the private owners and some to the communities. Some (like
> most of the Siberia) belonged to the state and could be given to the
> private owners (industrialists or farmers).

I suggest you read the book, you will not be sorry. Pipe feels that the
serfs felt that they did own the land.

[SolomonW]

On Sat, 9 Jul 2016 21:27:19 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans wrote:

>>Professor Pipe's in his book "Russia Under the Old Regime" considers that
>>this question was never resolved in Russia.
>
> It was really never resolved anywhere in the rest of Europe either, at
> least not in any permanent sense.

I agree and thanks for your other comments that I found interesting too.

[Sigurdr Volsung]

I understood all land in Oz was owned by the Queen, like in England. Everyone is assigned some kind of tenure relative to that principle.

[SolomonW]

Have a read and make your own mind up.
https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/protections-statutory-encroachment-11

[AlexMilman]

On Sunday, July 10, 2016 at 10:51:07 AM UTC-4, SolomonW wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Jul 2016 11:09:40 -0700 (PDT), AlexMilman wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, July 9, 2016 at 6:24:36 AM UTC-4, SolomonW wrote:
> >> On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 19:43:37 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans wrote:
> >>
> >>> Folks interested in the development of the anti-feudalism point
> >>> of view might wish to check the following:
> >>>
> >>> http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic1350026.files/Brown-Tyranny-of-a-Construct.pdf
> >>>
> >>> http://jla.oxfordjournals.org/content/7/2/251.full
> >>>
> >>> http://www.academia.edu/7972204/The_Construct_of_Feudalism_A_War_with_the_Tyrant_
> >>>
> >>> http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/source/reynolds-2%20reviews.asp
> >>>
> >>> That last one is two long reviews of the subject and may be tough going
> >>> for some.
> >>>
> >>> One more thing: history, like physics, is a moving subject. What was
> >>> accepted as true yesterday is often suspect today. And both yesterday
> >>> and today will be changed by the views of tomorrow. History moves
> >>> forward, its understanding changes and improves with time.
> >>
> >> I have a question,
> >>
> >> Who owns the land, the peasant, the king or the local lord?
> >
> > Depends on a country and the circumstances:
>
> Indeed which is why I said (a) below
>
> > if peasant was personally
> > free, he could own his land.
>
>
> Not always

AFAIK, "could" implies physical possibility and is not a synonym of "must".

>
>
> >
> >>
>
> (a)
> >> Please feel free to quote examples from any society in what we call
> >> medieval society.
> >>
> >> Thanking anyone who answers in advance.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Professor Pipe's in his book "Russia Under the Old Regime" considers that
> >> this question was never resolved in Russia.
> >
> > Taking into an account that pre-revolutionary Russia was not a
> > medieval state, this statement, even if it was true, does not make
> > too much sense in a medieval context.
>
> Mmmmmmmmmmmm

Your habit of imitating a cow is quite annoying. What are you trying to say?
That in 1914 Russia was a medieval country or that your question was not
about the medieval countries?

>
>
>
> > Anyway, I have no idea what
> > was 'unresolved': some lands belonged to the imperial family, some
> > to the the private owners and some to the communities. Some (like
> > most of the Siberia) belonged to the state and could be given to the
> > private owners (industrialists or farmers).
>
> I suggest you read the book, you will not be sorry. Pipe feels that the
> serfs felt that they did own the land.

I suggest that when you are reading the book you should start paying
attention to the tiny details like the dates. It is quite obviously
that Pipes is talking about the times preceding emancipation of the serfs
because after it happened the term became obsolete. Of course, the sentence
"Pipe FEELS that the serfs FELT ..." is a jewel on its own right. :-)

OK, the practical side of it:

1. LEGALLY, BEFORE the serfdom was abolished (even at that time Russia was not
a medieval country so your initial question is irrelevant), the land belonged
to:
(a) imperial family (the biggest landowner in Russia) - considered
"government's land"
(b) the estates owners
(c) the personally free small holders (Cossacks, free peasants, etc.)

There was, indeed, a popular NOTION among the serfs that a part of the
owner's land which they had been developing on a communal basis was their.
This had nothing to do with the legal ownership of the land and at any
moment the owner could take it away. With the same success the English
farmers renting from the big landowners could start FEELING that the
land is their.

2. AFTER the reform PART of the estates' land had been bought from the
owners and distributed among the rural communities. This created one more
class of the landowners, the community.

3. Stolypin reforms did not add any new class but extended the existing class
of the individual small landowners.

If you go back to the Middle ages (which obviously has nothing to do with
what you were quoting), situation with the landownership varied greatly
depending on time and place and, to start with, the "serfdom" in the form
it existed in XVIII - XIX simply did not exist in the Muscovite State.

[Sigurdr Volsung]

R. Allen Brown (1985). The Normans and the Norman Conquest. Boydell & Brewer Ltd. pp. 188–. ISBN 978-0-85115-367-4.

When the Domesday Book was compiled at the end of William the Conqueror's reign the Norman tenurial revolution in England was more or less complete, and the two great underlying principles, with their heavy social and constitutional overtones, are writ large on every page - the principle of 'nulle terre sans seigneur', and the principle that all land is held directly or indirectly of the king as suzerain.

[Sigurdr Volsung]

'nulle terre sans seigneur'

I thought I ought to translate it:

No land without a lord!

or

No property [land] without a liege!

This principle has been designated as an axiom of feudalism, especially in England.

A "liege" is a free person, having authority or right to allegiance, a liege lord. A liegeman is bound by a feudal tenure; obliged to be faithful and loyal to a superior, as a vassal to his lord.

[Sigurdr Volsung]

It was serious crime to break one's fealty to one's liege lord and one's suzerain, generally the monarch. If one did one was an outlaw or a felon.

[Sigurdr Volsung]

A great article though old.

The Patrician. The Feudal System. 1848. pp. 453–.
http://books.google.com/books?id=NN88AQAAIAAJ&pg=PA453

[The Horny Goat]

On Sun, 10 Jul 2016 12:04:45 -0700 (PDT), Sigurdr Volsung

<cjdro...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I understood all land in Oz was owned by the Queen, like in England. Everyo=

>ne is assigned some kind of tenure relative to that principle.

In Canada land 'ownership' is land 'held in fee simple' and does not
require royal or government permission to change hands. There are
other property types such as 'strata title' which most of the world
refers to as condominiums or condos.

Not sure when the removal of crown approval to transfer of land
started but long before my lifetime and probably considerably pre-1800
in Britain and the former colonies.

[Sigurdr Volsung]

Fee Simple is still a Fief. Her Majesty is still your overlord and the ultimate allodial owner of the land itself. You are only a tenant.

[D. Spencer Hines]

In essence, quite true.

In the United States as well.

Plus, we owe obeisance to the "King"...

If you don't pay him the taxes he demands of us, he will take our land away
from us and sell it or keep it.

Plus, the "King" can just take our land by Right of Eminent Domain [look at
the words Eminent Domain. They still have a Royal Flavour to them] after
paying us what he considers to be "Just Compensation". He determines what
is "Just".]

Further, the "King" can tell us how we must use our land. We can't create
ponds or do away with them without his permission. We cannot build on the
land without his permission. We cannot burn our leaves in the Fall, keep
chickens, or excavate without his permission.

So, Feudalism has just "evolved" -- it didn't completely go away entirely.

DSH

"À vaincre sans péril, on triomphe sans gloire." -- Pierre Corneille

[1606-1684]

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity."

Martin Luther King, Jr.
Strength to Love - Jan 1963

"Sigurdr Volsung" wrote in message
news:b13c3f4f-8bc2-4c03...@googlegroups.com...

[Sigurdr Volsung]

So could the British Parliament still deprive you of those lands by Act of Attainder because of the treason shown to the Crown in 1776?

[Tiglath]

On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 12:34:25 PM UTC-4, D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> In essence, quite true.
>
> In the United States as well.
>
> Plus, we owe obeisance to the "King"...

No.

When some thing loses its essence is it no longer the thing, or even the "thing."

The essence of kinship is ONE man supreme to all. And in the feudal case and medieval kinship, absolutism, with scarce recourse, if any, short of rebellion.

In the US we have preserved the benign concepts of a good governing king,
for the common good, because you don't really want your neighbor burning
eaves when you are downwind.

Gans one extreme: no feudalism, strike that word.

Hines the other: the "King" is still with us, because we have government.

Strike a balance, guys.

[The Horny Goat]

On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 09:18:34 -0700 (PDT), Sigurdr Volsung
<cjdro...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Fee Simple is still a Fief. Her Majesty is still your overlord and the ultimate allodial owner of the land itself. You are only a tenant.

Actually the difference between the modern and medieval view of fee
simple is that in modern times the Crown (or the People as the case
may be) ONLY has the right to intervene in a transfer o property
between citizens if they can convince a judge fraud or some other form
of criminal activity is involved.

In medieval times, if Percy wanted to sell or exchange lands with
Buckingham (I'm randomly picking these names - no particular intent
involved) Crown approval was required and could be denied on a whim.

For what it's worth, while "Royal Assent" has always been part of
British and Dominion law-making, the last time it was denied was by
Queen Anne on a Scottish militia bill that she felt acted against the
Act of Union - in other words, a little over 300 years ago.

Given the changes that have taken place in the last 300 years to the
British parliamentary system (numerous changes to the Lords, fixed
election dates for the Commons, British accession to the League of
Nations, United Nations and EU (or not!) it can be fairly said that
while HM has enormous influence, it is used lightly or scarcely at
all.

[The Horny Goat]

On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 06:34:12 -1000, "D. Spencer Hines"
<d_spenc...@america.com> wrote:

>Plus, the "King" can just take our land by Right of Eminent Domain [look at
>the words Eminent Domain. They still have a Royal Flavour to them] after
>paying us what he considers to be "Just Compensation". He determines what
>is "Just".]

Indeed - and given what is acceptable reason to invoke 'eminent
domain' in the United States I don't think the term oppression is
unreasonable.

As a non-American the fact that so much of Donald Trump's wealth is
based on state-sanctioned use of ''eminent domain' for private benefit
(presumably the argument is that it increases the value of the land
and thus the taxes collected from it) is to my mind the #1 reason to
not want him as a president.

(I accept there are other reasons but I'm talking land title here not
the 2016 US presidential race)

[Sigurdr Volsung]

Indeed Britain is probably more monarchical, more monarchist than it has ever been before, in a thousand years. The Queen wields enormous power by having the right to be consulted on every bit of government policy and action, including state secrets. She's kept in place by an enormous propaganda machine, which are trotted out on every State occasion. We are constantly being day in day out just how "lucky" we are to have her. The BBC lauds her all the time, and never the contrary view being expressed. And just at how Kate and Wills are being groomed in the public mind for the takeover when she goes.

The Queen is not an innocent, impartial person she has been made out to be. It is said she interfered in subtle ways in the recent EU referendum in favour of leaving. Bah would that we were rid of her and her kith and kin. Would that Britain grow up and the constitution of a proper republic fully answerable to the people in everything. I did not elect her. I am told that I must accept the status, that's the way things are. Just because Cromwell acted like Saddam Hussein we are told by the propaganda of our history lessons that this island has to have a monarchy. BAH.

And so it is a medieval institution kept in power by the Church and Nobles survives relatively unscathed into modern times. We have no choice about this, as indeed our ancestors before had no choice. Love it and lump it.

Actually our present Queen is not the true and direct heir of the Plantagenets. A rather nice ordinary family in Australia is.

[Tiglath]

On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 2:59:16 AM UTC-4, Sigurdr Volsung wrote:
> Indeed Britain is probably more monarchical, more monarchist than it has ever been before, in a thousand years. The Queen wields enormous power

Hilarious!

The Brexit slug things the queen has "enormous power."

A queen that reigns but does not govern. Some "enormous power."

What a joke.

At least she makes a decent fixture in British life, not like you who
parades the worse example of your race in public places, a dabbler of
history who amounts to a yob with computer.

It's time for you to go out and gather coke cans from rubbish bins, slug,
or there'll be no next meal.

[JA]

On 07/17/2016 10:34 AM, D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> In essence, quite true.
>
> In the United States as well.
>
> Plus, we owe obeisance to the "King"...
>
> If you don't pay him the taxes he demands of us, he will take our land away
> from us and sell it or keep it.
>
> Plus, the "King" can just take our land by Right of Eminent Domain [look at
> the words Eminent Domain. They still have a Royal Flavour to them] after
> paying us what he considers to be "Just Compensation". He determines what
> is "Just".]
>
> Further, the "King" can tell us how we must use our land. We can't create
> ponds or do away with them without his permission. We cannot build on the
> land without his permission. We cannot burn our leaves in the Fall, keep
> chickens, or excavate without his permission.
>
> So, Feudalism has just "evolved" -- it didn't completely go away entirely.

Right you are.

Next, they'll be forcing people to innoculate their children against
communicable diseases!

And who among doesn't get annoyed at stop signs, traffic lights, speed
limits - all infringements on our freedoms?

Climate science deniers are at the forefront of freedom preservation -
if only they would also deny medical science advice from their MDs....

[Robert Mulain]

On Sunday, 17 July 2016 17:34:25 UTC+1, D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> In essence, quite true.
>
> In the United States as well.
>
> Plus, we owe obeisance to the "King"...
>

Ahem... not since 1776.

I believe the most excellent "Bicentennial Acid" tablets once enjoyed here (in 1976) were a friendly sort of compensation for all the tea wasted in Boston harbour, which was much appreciated by us, as much as those old destroyers in 1940 and more...

A very special union indeed, but there is no feudalism, perish the thought!

[gggg...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 12:43:38 PM UTC-7, Paul J Gans wrote:
> Folks interested in the development of the anti-feudalism point
> of view might wish to check the following:
>
> http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic1350026.files/Brown-Tyranny-of-a-Construct.pdf
>
> http://jla.oxfordjournals.org/content/7/2/251.full
>
> http://www.academia.edu/7972204/The_Construct_of_Feudalism_A_War_with_the_Tyrant_
>
> http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/source/reynolds-2%20reviews.asp
>
> That last one is two long reviews of the subject and may be tough going
> for some.
>
> One more thing: history, like physics, is a moving subject. What was
> accepted as true yesterday is often suspect today. And both yesterday
> and today will be changed by the views of tomorrow. History moves
> forward, its understanding changes and improves with time.
>

> --
> --- Paul J. Gans

https://www.historyonthenet.com/middle-ages-comprehensive-overview-europe-500-1500

[Paul J Gans]

I posted the original in 2016. I'll respond to your post in 2024.

[Tiglath]

Paul has always been a busy guy, ggggggg, got to understand that.

[Erilar]

Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

>
>> https://www.historyonthenet.com/middle-ages-comprehensive-overview-europe-500-1500
>
> I posted the original in 2016. I'll respond to your post in 2024.
>

Hi, Paul!
Where do these characters FIND our ancient posts?

--
biblioholic medievalist via iPad

[Paul J Gans]

Erilar <dra...@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
>Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

>>
>>> https://www.historyonthenet.com/middle-ages-comprehensive-overview-europe-500-1500
>>
>> I posted the original in 2016. I'll respond to your post in 2024.
>>

>Hi, Paul!
>Where do these characters FIND our ancient posts?

I have no idea. Somewhere there must be a collection of old shm posts.

[a425couple]

On 3/16/2020 7:08 PM, Erilar wrote:
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>> https://www.historyonthenet.com/middle-ages-comprehensive-overview-europe-500-1500
>>
>> I posted the original in 2016. I'll respond to your post in 2024.
>>
>
> Hi, Paul!
> Where do these characters FIND our ancient posts?
>

There is nothing magical about it.
My load of this newsgroup goes back over a decade.

And why anyone wants to so mock a poster that
keeps posting intelligent on topic information
kind of saddens me.

[Mikgmx]

Now I know that you are really ancient.
Still counting in Olympiades ?
;-)
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner

[Mikgmx]

Erilar wrote:
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>> https://www.historyonthenet.com/middle-ages-comprehensive-overview-europe-500-1500
>>
>> I posted the original in 2016. I'll respond to your post in 2024.
>>
>
> Hi, Paul!
> Where do these characters FIND our ancient posts?
>

Hi, erilar !

groups.google
Plus : Search results on google include ng-messages from the archieve.
Or a server hiccups.
Or a poster gets gripped by nostalgia.

Greetings from the quarantine,
Michael Kuettner

[Paul J Gans]

Not really, especially not since they cancelled the current Olympics.
But I am still here, mostly just lurking.

[Paul J Gans]

Yes. I've not been out of the house in two weeks. There's been a coup
here with my wife and our children seizing power. I was threatened with
having to eat my own cooking.

There is no worse fate. :-)

[Mikgmx]

OK, I'll help you out here with an Austrian recipe - Paprikahuhn
(chicken with paprika).

1 chicken (quartered)
salt
2 teaspoons of paprika
garlic (mashed)
50 grams fatty smoked bacon (cut into small cubes)
1 onion (finely chopped)
vinegar
1/2 litre of chicken stock or water
20 grams flour
1/8 litre of sour creme (creme fraiche)
lard or oil

Rub the chicken with salt; slightly brown it on all sides on high
temperature.
Remove from pan.
Put bacon and onion in an and let the bacon and onion become glassy (stir !)
Apply the paprika, mix shortly and immediately deglace with the vinegar.
Stir shortly and add the chicken stock.
Put burner on low heat.
Add the chicken again, add some salt and the garlic.
Put lid on pan and let it simmer until the chicken is cooked.
Remove chicken from pan and keep it warm.
Mix sour cream, flour and some chickenstock and stir until it's smooth
(no clumps).
Pour the mix into the pan while stirring until the mix is smooth.
Add chicken again, cover the pan and let it simmer for another 10 minutes.
Serve with rice or noodles.

Bon appetite,
Michael Kuettner

[Mikgmx]

The current Olymipcs? Who gives a damn !
I won't change my 2800 year-old counting now; I didn't change it in WWII ;-)

Some medieval content : I'm reading "Chlodwig I." (Chlodevech) by
Matthias Becher.
A well researched and well written book about the first Merovingian
(the one who brought them to power, I mean).

Cheers,
Michael Kuettner

[Paul J Gans]

I'll pass this on to my wife. It looks GOOD!

[Paul J Gans]

I could never keep the Merovingians straight. You are a better man than
I am.

[gggg...@gmail.com]

"The Merovingian Kingdoms and the Mediterranean World: Revisiting the Sources" (recent book):

https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/the-merovingian-kingdoms-and-the-mediterranean-world-9781350048386/

[David Read]

On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 7:23:07 PM UTC+1, Mikgmx wrote:

<snip>

> Some medieval content : I'm reading "Chlodwig I." (Chlodevech) by
> Matthias Becher.
> A well researched and well written book about the first Merovingian
> (the one who brought them to power, I mean).
>
> Cheers,
> Michael Kuettner

Now, here's an idea.

You could start a brand new thread about the Merovingians with a fun or interesting quote from Matthias Becher's book and, if you're feeling kind, you could even provide a translation in English of the quote as well. Erilar could check your translation for accuracy.

Then, who knows, I and some others could raid our bookshelves and time-dimmed memories in order that your new thread might turn out to be like one of those long-lamented and mis-remembered shm threads of yesteryear.

Cheers,

David Read

[Mikgmx]

Of course it's good.
Austria might have lost the empire, but we've kept our recipes ;-)
Just let me know what animal or vegetable you prefer, and I'll post the
recipe for it ;-)

Cheers,
Michael Kuettner

[Mikgmx]

David Read wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 7:23:07 PM UTC+1, Mikgmx wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Some medieval content : I'm reading "Chlodwig I." (Chlodevech) by
>> Matthias Becher.
>> A well researched and well written book about the first Merovingian
>> (the one who brought them to power, I mean).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Michael Kuettner
>
> Now, here's an idea.
>
> You could start a brand new thread about the Merovingians with a fun or interesting quote from Matthias Becher's book and, if you're feeling kind, you could even provide a translation in English of the quote as well. Erilar could check your translation for accuracy.
>

Posting a quote without translation would be rather pointless, right ?

Otherwise : Sounds good. But you'd have to specify what aspect you're
especially interested in.
The book's subtitle is : "The rise of the Merovingians and the end of
Antiquity".
A fun quote (not from Becher) comes to mind :
"The Merovingians are like 'A Game of Thrones'. Only with more blood and
violence and the occasional murder in between to lighten things up a
little bit." ;-)

> Then, who knows, I and some others could raid our bookshelves and time-dimmed memories in order that your new thread might turn out to be like one of those long-lamented and mis-remembered shm threads of yesteryear.

Yes, some medieval content is sorely needed.
I'll get around to it tomorrow; living in quarantine gives me a little time.
Nice to hear from you again !

Cheers,
Michael Kuettner

[Mikgmx]

Paul J Gans wrote:
<snip>

> I could never keep the Merovingians straight. You are a better man than
> I am.
>

That's just because there never was a straight Merovingian among those
homicidal bastards :-)

Cheers,
Michael Kuettner

[Mikgmx]

Merovingian kingdomS ? Ohmygod.
There was exactly ONE Merovingian kingdom.
Before that there were several FRANKISH kingdoms or duchies;
but certainly no Merovingian kingdomS.

Cheers,
Michael Kuettner